If they continue on like this for a few more days, Obama will have $15M to Clintons $7.5M more to spend… the point is, there is more than enough money being raised by both sides that its not really a significant advantage, especially at the Presidential level– you need enough money but having a ton more cannot alone win it. Ask Ron Paul.
I might be more inclined to agree with this had Clinton not screwed the pooch and agreed to the Fox News debate.
With a large cash deficit, Clinton needed to find ways to keep her face in front of the voters without having to depend on expensive TV advertising — where Obama can outspend her. So she challenged Obama to four more debates, which guarantees her "free media" in a forum she does well in.
As Joe Klein says (yes, Joe Klein), Clinton’s strengths — her wonkish ability to drill down into policy details — serve her well in a debate forum. Obama’s messianic movement rhetoric that make his rallies so inspirational simply isn’t as effective there.
Under normal circumstances, the online community would probably be calling for him to accept the debate challenge, to keep the Democratic message before the public, and decry the reliance on carefully sculpted advertising content where the advantage went to the person with the most money. But that disappeared the minute Fox News entered the picture.
The very same people who would have been trying to level the playing field and push for open debate are simply not going to advocate for a situation where Fox News becomes empowered with arbiter status to a new audience of people who are just tuning into the political conversation. And Clinton undermines her message to these people — that the right wing noise machine is something to be fought, not accommodated — when she shows a willingness to offer them that authority.
When Clinton included Fox on the list of debates she wanted Obama to agree to, she sowed the seeds of failure into the plan. It would be nice if he would accept the other debates, but singling out Fox really isn’t his deal so I don’t imagine he will. In cosying up to Fox, the Clinton campaign gave Obama the ability to perfectly thread that needle. It makes his cash advantage weigh heavily in his favor. He is the frontrunner.
From both a movement and a practical perspective, colossally stupid.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Jane!
Ding!
wow, spock would ask for your hand in marriage for that demonstration of sheer logic
If it weren’t cruel and unusual, to say the least, reruns of Faux news would make a great coercion tool for information gathering.
Look at how many Americans have been reduced to drooling imbeciles by watching it voluntarily!
”sowed” the seeds.
Seriously though, wtf is HRC thinking?
hey jane. i hope to god they don’t debate on Fox.
Jane, I normally agree with you on most things but you are wrong on this one. I work in a voter registration office in Alabama and can tell you that even though Obama won Ala in the primary no way will he win in Nov.
The voter turn out here was about 33% of the total of our voters and he won because the black voters turned out but the white and other voters did not. But they will in Nov and he will lose and lose badly if he is the democratic canidate. He will not carry a single southern state if he is the canidate. So no matter how much the news hypes him he will lose the general election.
No canidate can win a presidental elections without some southern states.
Hillary is playing to her strengths and will win the presidental election if she can be the democratic canidate.
She is a great debater and will do well and she is using fox for her cause and our cause not fox’s.
it’s called ”panicking”.
Why is there no other venue for a debate? Why is FOX the only one inviting them?
I have to agree, now that edwards is gone I was thinking I wanted her more then obama but that decision made me change my mind pronto
I kind of think hillary can’t win the south either, the republicans have garnered a vile hatred for her and they will amass
mccain’s chances have grown proportionatly since edwards dropped out
I voted for her on Tuesday. I was undecided until Monday night which has never happened in 20+ years of voting. When she does this kind of thing it makes me wonder what the hell she’s up to.
I switched between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX throughout Super Tuesday results. Without question, FOX News really IS more fair and balanced than MSNBC!
If Clinton boycotts any network, it should be MSNBC. FOX is OK with me!
that’s why i first supported edwards in 2004. i thought he at least had a shot in some places in the south. but kerry almsot won w/o the south. it’s do-able.
At this point shouldn’t Klein’s anti-logic only be quoted to support the opposite of what he says?
The name of the game is exposure. I have always loathed Faux but in flipping channels recently they are not much worse than CNN.
To much damn money being spent for this one job as president. Would be nice if that money was used to buy health care for those less fortunate…could probably cover everyone in the entire US (without health care) for quite some time.
Speaking of which (side note), I just experienced another reason why we don’t want the government in charge of health care…..GO GET A U.S. PASSPORT. They are still doing it the same way they did in the 80’s. As a matter of fact, the cutting edge “new technology” is a digital camera and printer they just got last week. Up until then, they were still using Polaroid’s. This is a tiny little thing the government can’t do well, and it still cost $225 for my wife and I. So not only do I pay taxes for this, but I had to pay this additional “fee’s” for processing. Please, I beg all of you, do not put the government in charge of health care. As P.J O’Rourke states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._O’Rourke)”If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it’s free”.
I’m in the south and I have repubs telling me they will vote for which ever Dem is nominated.
*crosses fingers*
please let it be true
eCAHN -
EPU’d from downstairs (if you’re still here)….I saw a clip of McCain being booed at CPAC on Morning (Not) Joe this morning.
As close as Hillary is to Murdoch, how could she refuse to ultimately show up on Fox?
From both a movement and a practical perspective, colossally stupid.
A-fucking-men!!! It shouts “LOSER” all the way…
My understanding is that Senator Clinton listed Fox as a venue for more debates along with CNN, ABC, NBC/MSNBC, etc.
And realistically, can Fox be any worse with “gotcha” nonsense and sandbagging questions than Punkinhaid, The Beard, Tweety, and so on have already been?
Thanks. Was wondering how that got around.
I don’t think she’s all that close to Murdoch or his newspaper wouldn’t have endorsed Obama.
Close, but no cigar — even people like Joe Klein will randomly belch a truth from time to time. Gotta watch for that.
but that’s the point and it’s why we would hate her for doing it
I agree about Fox but if you are going to use journalistic ethics and practices then a few other places need to go on the banned list as well.
In private, Obama must be rolling around the floor in laughter. After the whole Nevada debate fiasco, what is Hillary thinking? Or is this the $500,000/month advice from the brilliant(/snark) advice of Mark Penn?
Joke Line also pushes the meme that Hills is about “substance” but Bama is about “speech making.” Spare me. For Klein, it is all about the Iraq war, AIP*C and Hills commitment to both. Ditto Fox.
I could see her accommodating Murdoch as just one more ‘necessary evil’, in her campaign.
Do they tell you why?
Hypocrisy…because MSNBC has become as bad as Fox and yet no uproar. Both should be tough enough to go on Fox. They appear in interviews on that network…both of them…This is short sighted. There is no reason Fox will be any worse than Russert or Williams. If the candidates can reach more people, the better for Democrats.
As usual, petty stories from a bunch of hypocrites. There are rules they can agree on that can prevent whatever it is the writer is concerned about. But then let’s have those rules for NBC and CNN too.
Funny, I don’t hear this blogger advocating a ban on MSNBC for their non stop misogyny or anti Hillary bias. Pleaseee. Hypocrisy is so unattractive
in Republicans…why make it part a staple of the left blogs?
Dang, I wish we had comment editor back!!
It may be easier to come up with a list of acceptable stations than list the unethical and disgustingly absent “journalism” stations.
my father has an antique store, in it we have a cloock that once graced the walls of grand central station
it doesn’t work though and nobody can fabricate the part that needs to be replaced, sadly, it’s stuck, never to run again
never the less
it’s corrrect 2 times a day
With his loads of cash, perhaps he could (publicly) offer Clinton a loan for her campaign.
I don’t know who Spock is but I’d wager he’d have to fight for that right. ;-)
I’d love to know the cost/benefit analysis on that – how long do you have to watch before it happens and how much is it worth when it does?
not a trekie I suppose
Makes me question her judgement. I want someone in the WH who is correct from Day One.
Did you see it?
I think that the sock puppets have arrived.
Amen, brother.
And don’t forget, Penn can go back to his lobbying firm after the campaign if he wants. I’ll never know why he’s getting paid all that money upfront. If I was a candidate, I’d give a guy like him a decent paycheck but he’d have to wait till after the election to get paid fully. If she does lose, will Penn refund her any of that $500,000/month?
Good post.
I don’t mean to be rude, but this is a really lousy argument. MSNBC has KO. They might have pundits that lean right, and Tweety might be nuts, but they’re not there solely as the propaganda arm of the GOP. That’s Fox’s business plan.
Toughness has absolutely zilch to do with it. Toughness really means they tell Fox to go to hell.
Looks like Mitt’s out. Since I’m too lazy to do it myself, can someone go back and dig up all those talking head quotes about how his big religion speech was going to propel him to the nomination?
JoeCHI –I agree with you completely…something is very wrong in the so called progressive blogosphere…and people are slowly getting it…I hope it’s not too late because what kmdala is saying isn’t being reported anywhere…yet the blogs are supposed to not filter the news…how sad it is.
Thanks kmdala…for a little reality check.
I’m thinking Dobson coming out on tuesday saying under no circumstance will he vote for crazy train was a last ditch effort to save Williard. Failed miserably that.
Have to disagree there on both counts. MSNBC has KO and Rachel Maddow, and invites progressive speakers on the air, Fox would never do this.
And as for “no uproar” are we reading the same blog? Because I hear plenty of criticism of Matthews, Russert, etc.
Think Progress:
Romney to reportedly drop out of presidential race. GOP sources are saying that Mitt Romney will suspend his presidential bid. He is expected to make the withdrawal announcement today at CPAC.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..ng_ou.html
Oh, it does happen. As a matter of fact, I remember a column of his from November 1998, where he….um…
No, no…I guess not that one.
Let me get back to you on that.
What is it with wingnut trolls and apostrophes?
“From both a movement and a practical perspective, colossally stupid.”
Colossally correct.
OF COURSE she wants to go on Fox News. She’s much more conservative than he is. She’s Ann Coulter’s choice!
Murdoch hasn’t held fundraisers for Obama, yet he has for Sen. Clinton.
-G
Yeah just saw a “Breaking News” announcement on AP News…but no report. Mitt will likely announce his withdrawal (or suspension) later today in a News Conference.
“I’ve decided to spend more time with my
moneyfamily.”Really? Would love that clip.
Snake handlers just hate him, don’t they?
they could appear on fox if fox did not have the rights to the footage and would have to buy any clip they used
if that were the case they can appear on fox
msn is not fox, to make a good analogy you would have to use air america
and ya, if the republicans want to debate on air america then I think the democrats could debate on fox
so that’s the test, get the repubs to debate on air america and then there should be a deal
per cnn update email
mitt romney just ”suspended his campaign”
this was a drive-by—hope all are well…….
Katherine Jean Lopez has been put on suicide watch.
-G
ROMNEY GONE
Blue Texan
MSNBC is pure propaganda…so is CNN to a much lesser degree. I actually heard Anderson Cooper say that Hillary voted for the AUMF and Obama VOTED against it. And they kept saying it. But MSNBC lies constantly. Hannity and Colmes is more fair minded than anything on MSNBC. Alan Colmes is excellent compared to anyone on MSNBC except for Abrams.
Mitt Romney is dropping out per MSNBC. Suspending or withdrawal from Presidential race.
And Fox on shiny paper, the Weekly Standard
And the goddam Journal
And the NY Post and Sun
Bought and paid for, Jane. She’s pWned.
HRC made this decision a long, LONG time ago, when she allowed herself to be bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch.
Of course you remember us netroots booing her at YearlyKos as she weaseled and avoided the question about media reform, since Murdoch had given her a massive donation. Right in that moment, the hesitant sidestepping of the question, she telegraphed that she’d be Murdoch’s little gopher puppet, popping up next to the podium upon her master’s demand.
What a foolish woman, to think she can master the monster. I hate to think I am going to have to vote for the least of evils this November.
agree.
damn it!
I wanted him to spend another 50 million of his own money before he dropped out…that would help the economy and all
Sorry, Jane. This time I don’t buy the uproar. Both Obama and Hillary appear on Fox. He even agreed to go on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Nor – as other commentators have noted – is MSNBC that much better than Fox.
The real issue is that he’s refusing more debates now that is down to two of them. But once again progressive blogs will give him cover by making Fox the issue.
It’s going to be really hard for Dobson, Coulter, Limbaugh, and others to back away from some of the statements that they’ve been making about McCain, don’t you think? There hasn’t been much gray area in what they’ve been saying.
To accept an invitation to debate on Fox, legitimizes this propaganda machine as being a “news” orginization.
uh-oh — this’ll get lost in the Mittster news, but just in case BushCo hasn’t dumbed down the next generation enough, Bush budget cuts funding for Reading is Fundamental. Would kill RIF.
’splain that one to the First Librarian, you s.o.b.
say goodnight, Mitt
Hillary goes on Pox a lot. Obama shut them out for year. I was disappointed to see he did do an interview for Pox recently though, breaking the streak. Perhaps Obama was sending them a message.
I am inclined to agree.
Hee haw.
Kool Aid anyone?
-G
You know…if Obama was smart he’d simply say…well lets have regional debates. We’ll do one for the Potomac area, one for the Northwest, one for La. Mississippi, and Texas and one for Ohio/Indiana. Local stations…not national.
Or he could point out that the last debate had such high ratings that he really preferred not to be a walkin’-talkin’ ATM for Fox.
Good morning,
Serious question-Is there not a majority of democrats in the USA all over the map. Did we not win both the 2000 and the 2004 (technically). Won’t those votes transfer to Barak, or Hillary plus the people who have been energized by this campaign, newly enthusiastic to cast their vote, is the south so crucial to that vote. And when people hear what John McCain has to say will they really be willing to live through more of what I can only term a nightmare of terror 24/7 365X8. Without getting into specifics-because I haven’t that information.
Well, FWIW, I believe he is a constituent of hers. I may not like him but given our political system, I can understand why a politician might accept fund raising support from someone with whom they do not have a lot in common.
lily @ 15 – you’re kidding right? Alan Colmes couldn’t debate himself out of a high school gym.
Words mean nothing, nothing to them anyways.
-G
If Joe Klein told two truths a day, guaranteed, I might actually read something of his — if, say, I was in jail and it was either that or re-examining a scab or something.
Another in a series of misteps, starting with Iraq, by Senator Clinton.
I have to go back to work.
Absolutely. Keep wondering if they really would sit out the election if HRC is the candidate. Could their disdain for crazy train really be enough for them to encourage folks not to vote against HRC?
Where did these trollish Clinton partisans come from? Are there really another fourteen of this one somewhere?
Yucks from T. Tomorrow:
http://www.villagevoice.com/ne…..422,9.html
sangemon….so sock pockets are those that don’t agree with you? I don’t think you realize how much you are alienating other Democrats (not that you care)…the so called progressive blogs have become intolerant and myopic. These days I end up at those few sites that actually are progressive and intelligent…theleftcoaster.com correntewire.com dailyhowler.com talkleft.com The list is small…a sad comment on the state of progressive blogs…which have deteriorated into self reverential group think.
and other literacy funding (e.g. adult literacy, ESOL programs are either being cut or held at last years levels)
I loved this Onion piece — a local FOX affiliate Terror-Alert Van.
Note the sign on the back — “Honk If You See Terror Happening.”
http://www.theonion.com/conten…..uts_terror
On Clinton’s claim that MoveOn is helping Obama fund raise unfairly putting her at a disadvantage, I just received my secong? fund raising letter from Emily’s list for her. Goose-Gander.
I would like us to use caution before calling other commenters trolls. We are going to have some spectacular disagreements before this election is thru, hope it can stay civil.
Romney quit so these cowardly fucking democrats won’t surrender.
Clinton supporters have become trolls? Excuse me.
Wasn’t Fox the network that ran with that story about Obama’s schooling in Kenya that was not only false, but unverified too? Are they trying to propose a scenario that Obama would knowingly reject, then criticize him for?
I consider Fox to be Goebbels, Inc. and didn’t like HRC agreeing to them, regardless. I hope they agree to debate on the others. I also don’t like the whole “money is speech” ruling and think public finance is the only real answer. In the meantime, I had already contributed a bit to Obama and now contributed a bit to HRC. Silly as it is, I hate to see money as the deciding factor.
Point taken. Wrong term. Maybe “sock puppets”. Or self-proliferating nanocommenters.
cdalygo
You have it exactly right. A good excuse to avoid more debates…and now the left is in on that too. Now what is their reason exactly? It’s OK that Obama and Clinton appear and be interviewed on Fox…but debates cross the line? They have gone off the deep end here.
TPM has an article showing this was completely false and made-up by Team Clinton. MoveOn is releasing their numbers today, so whatever they raised will be on top of the $7 million that was raised directly through Obama’s site in the last 48 hours.
I disagree. Given the overwhelming rejection of Hillary (as measured by the various straw polls done at Daily Kos) by the “movement” I don’t think Hillary is, or should be, too concerned about their take on this. From a practical perspective it gets her one on one with Obama where her superior grasp of issues comes through.
Does Obama even talk to the folks from Faux? I thought he had sort of boycotted them after they made the “Hussein” play on his name.
What’s next for HRC, going on Rush and trying to convince him that she only knew Vince Foster tangentially? Sheesh, Hillary what are you thinkin’?
Not speaking for others but I do believe there are enough policy issue differences between the two that this really is a non-issue in my mind.
Do I watch Fox? No
Do I think they are a shining example of outstanding journalism? No
But they are on the scene. They do have millions of viewers that are potential voters and as such, I can’t fault a candidate for wanting to reach voters. And I do believe either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama are strong enough and intelligent enough to not let themselves be sandbagged by Hume/Wallace/et al.
And beyond everything else, don’t forget that Fox has the feed rights for the Convention this summer. We might be better served to acknowledge them now just because of the mischief they can do. Not saying they would but…
Gee what kind of people name call those who don’t agree with them… hum…
There is not a majority of Democrats in the USA, but Dems make up the largest party (Rethugs and Independents combined total a larger number). Gore received a more total votes than Bush in 2000, but Kerry did not in 2004.
Diane….is that something you heard from the blogs. Quite to the contrary, he’s excellent…and so is his radio show. There is no one on MSNBC as good..nor on CNN.
I love this idea. Makes the issues discussed more regional and applicable to folks.
I take it back. But there’s got to be some kind of bar for integrity. Defending FOX as no worse than the other major media is stretching it.
Clinton can maybe be forgiven for sacrificing a principle of Democratic solidarity under such tactical and financial duress in a fight for her political life, but come on…
…after all, Obama has done the same thing.
Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)
TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.
http://www.cmpa.com/
I switched between those networks also, in addition to BBC America. IMO, BBC America covered the Super Tuesday primaries better than any of the rest.
The truth is that this is utterly strategic on both their parts. It has nothing to do really with Fox. Hillary needs to stay in front of people because over the next month it’s simply going to be dismal for her in the media.On February 9th you have Louisiana and Nebraska. The fear is that Louisiana will be more like Alabama than Arkansas…and Nebraska will be Iowa or Kansas.
Maine appears to have a large Obama contingent…highly energized…and those are caucuses.
Then comes the Potomac triad of DC, Maryland and Virginia. The Clintonistas have practically ceded those races to Obama on Feb 12.On Feb. 19th are caucuses in Washington, Wisconsin and Hawaii. Not as many Hispanics in Washington (in fact blacks outnumber them) and lots of young, well-educated types that appear motivated to support Obama. Wisconsin may trend to Obama as did Iowa and Minnesota. Hawaii – Obama is sort of a “native son” there.
Clinton supporters say that they are looking ahead to March…to Ohio and Texas. But that would be a month were primary-after-primary might be Clinton losses. That could sap momentum and take her face out of the media.
Obama may be able to gain local delegates by spending more time in those states on an individual basis.
But debates on nationwide TV could serve another purpose for Hillary. It gives her a chance to be seen by the Super-Delegates on a par with Obama and thus balance out some of those February losses.
Superior grasp of issues? Hillary has avoided direct questions from moderators and the public about the long term effects of her 5 year ‘freeze’ on mortgage rates. I don’t know if she has even thought about it or is unwilling to tell everyone because she just doesn’t answer the question. Oh and exactly how are we going to enforce the mandatory insurance law again? Wage garnishments? Again, no straight answers. She has a command of buzzwords, but is not very forthcoming with honest answers when it doesn’t suit her to do so.
What is the point of this and like arguments? FOX has said “oops, my bad” and after the past decade of behavior they’re now to be treated as objective dispensers of news? It’s a worthy long-term end in itself to attack and diminish this network.
No, a sock puppet is someone who invades a comment thread and posts trollish comments under multiple pseudonyms, often commenting on their own comments, in an effort to disrupt the thread.
Unfortunately she’s tin-eared the way Bush Sr. was. Bush was entirely dependent on advisors to tell him how to interpret the current political climate. Remember his famous gaffe in a Chicago supermarket? He was impressed with scan technology which at the time was anything but new.
Clinton doesn’t understand the problem with Fox News, just as she didn’t understand the uproar her vote for the war caused. She still doesn’t understand it! Bill reads politics better than Hillary, and when he made mistakes, he recovered quickly. Hillary isn’t as light on her feet. Ask her about the war vote, she still has traces of a dazed look.
Hillary will never win Alabama either… Sorry but true. The West Midwest will be the battleground this election cycle.
OT- the Mittster on c-span 2, about to suspend his campaign at CPAC.
Jane,
Off topic, hope you see this, I’ll try to get this out. The Bush budget cuts VAWA which was the big program created by the Clinton administration to help women who are living with domestic violence or who have been sexually assaulted. From my point of view this is one of the biggest things that Clinton accomplished. (I guess Obama didn’t see it that way) but from my point of view this was truly a change in trajectory.
Please save VAWA. Would you be willing to have someone post on this?
I agree no Fox as I posted earlier in the thread. I think the ban should apply equally
That’s funny. I interpreted that look as one of bloodthirsty reverie.
Yes and no. Moveon is planning on giving their funds to Obama, I think, but has not yet.
egregious February 7th, 2008 at 9:35 am
94
I would like us to use caution before calling other commenters trolls. We are going to have some spectacular disagreements before this election is thru, hope it can stay civil.
_______
church-farters? punchbowl turd-droppers?
Mitt, the multi-millionaire, says welfare created poverty in this country. I’m so tired of hearing crap like this.
I think MoveOn is supposed to be an issue oriented non-candidate site…Emily’s List actually does raise money for candidates. There are differences in the Tax and election codes in regards to these groups.It’s sort of the distinction between this SITE and Blue America. This site is not supposed to be overtly partisan…if it does it has to report it’s expenditures as part of a campaign and may, in fact, be constrained in spending.
So I kind of see her point….though the system has become pretty blurred this campaign. In fact, the Swiftboaters only issue, it seemed, was whether John Kerry lied about his service in VietNam…yet it was “supposedly” an “independent issue-oriented organization”.
That’s not very realistic, though. The left blogosphere has to pick its battles, and has done well picking FOX to target.
I actually think it is a great idea to go on FOX. Did you see how Clinton and Obama were able to get under Blitzer’s skin by reforming the questions he asked? Don’t you think this is a good opportunity to have our candidates rebut the FOX conventional wisdom as presented by the narrator? Plus more chance to win over the independents.
It’s not like both of the candidates have been boycotting FOX lately. They have both been on many times recently. Plus you have to think about the meme that “if you can’t handle a FOX debate, how can you handle AlQaeda” will play on the independents.
But they are on the scene. They do have millions of viewers that are potential voters and as such, I can’t fault a candidate for wanting to reach voters. And I do believe either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama are strong enough and intelligent enough to not let themselves be sandbagged by Hume/Wallace/et al.
And beyond everything else, don’t forget that Fox has the feed rights for the Convention this summer. We might be better served to acknowledge them now just because of the mischief they can do. Not saying they would but…
________________
blackmail anybody ……?
There’s a difference between answer FOX reporters’ and pundits’ questions and letting FOX host a debate. But you know that.
Fire Mark Penn! My God.
Yes, Obama has been on FOX “News” twice now just this year, but Clinton including that blasted channel is just sad. Damn it. I want to see a great contest between these two and I don’t want either of them to get taken out by their own stupid mistakes.
cinnamonape is correct that this is about strategy. Aside from trying to drive the news cycle, Hillary also needs to nail down an opponent who tries to be all things to all people.
The Fox thing is especially intriguing. How does Obama address it? Does he use the real reason that his supporters hate it as the GOP partisan channel it is? But we are told he is all about post-partisanship and transcending divisions.
If an uproar erupts over Fox, I see Obama losing indy supporters who want less him to be non-ideological. The downside for Hillary is what? Losing the blogosphere? Hasn’t that train left the station? (Does any sentient being think Hillary is a friend of FoxNews?) Does Obama satisfy his activists, or his essential Republican and indy swing voters?
What exactly is the difference?
I can’t understand how her team can be so stupid, but then I remember who is on her team, Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn who have demonstrated again and again their incompetance and outright hostility to the on-line community of Democrats. However it has occurred to me that while Hillary seems to be burning her bridges with us the reality is that the liberal blogoshere has never embraced her and from what I read at many sites(FDL is a welcome exception in its fairness to all the candidates) will never embrace her (although I think most will reluctantly support her if she is the nominee).
So maybe the calculation is why shouldn’t she debate on Fox. My vivacious, invalid of a mother watches Fox news because my dad is a crazed Republican and that is what he wants to watch. My mother has always voted republican but thinks that the U.S. should get out of Iraq “if their people don’t want us there” and is quite amenable to the idea of universal health care. I think she would really like Hillary if she was able to see her debate.
She saw an interview with Jane Fonda on Fox a few years back and to my wingnut father’s horror, she insisted he go buy Fonda’s book. My mom loved it, every phone call for a month included how interesting and smart she was. There are probably others like her who after being fed the Hillary is Evil line for years would finally see that she is not.
I am frustrated when the democrats do not stick together in regards to message but I am not horrified that she is trying to reach a group of voters that aren’t me. Honestly Obama went way off message about social security and that is a more serious breach as far as I am concerned.
Since moveon endorsed Obama I’ve received a barrage of emails from them soliciting contributions for the candidate. At least they had the decency to provide an opt-out link for future solicitations. I exercised it. That’ll teach me to vote for Obama in the moveon poll.
His schooling in an INDONESIAN “madrassa” to be precise. Yes, that WAS FOX. And I believe it was CNN that actually bothered to go there and found out it was not an Islamic school, didn’t teach religion, and had Hindus, Buddhist, Catholic (Obama also attended a Catholic school in Jakarta…but you don’t hear him being accused of belonging to Jesuitical Papal secret organizations) AND Muslim students. Given that 95% of Javans are Muslim that wouldn’t be a surprise. But the teachers at that schools were mixed-religion. The only thing that might suggest a non-secular orientation is that there was an area (a surau) where the Muslim students could pray at the proper times during school breaks.
Well said.
If they are going to break the BOYCOTT on debates established by the Party back last year they should ONLY do so with the advice of the party leadership…folks like Howard Dean.
In addition, they should state that they do so only if Fox gives the revenues generated to chrarities like Habitat For Humanity, food banks, and other organizations that help tose that will be left out of the Bush “stimulus” package.
;-)
I am born and raised in Los Angeles and know that Fox is what it is…..but as my wise and very successful grandmother used to say is “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer”…..Smart move Hillary..you have gamed them at every turn…Obama is ego on the march and he has bought the hype….and why am I not included in his healthcare plan? 44 year old male?…politics like life is fluid and HRC has adapted at every turn, Obama will eventually have to adjust and I bet he can’t…in the face of real opposition preachers just scream louder and call for more division..like his thinly veiled “status quo” remark, which alienated many long term democrats…
I have my own hope and change is a personal issue, I don’t need some politician to preach to me..mind your own business and balance the budget or something…..
That’s an easy one. Fox is all about CREATING the divisions and fueling the “us vs. them” mentality that Obama is trying to redress. So why should he support a network that, to paraphrase Lenin, will use the profits from the debate as rope to hang his dreams from.
I hope the rumors are not true that the DNC is reconsidering seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!
I may be wrong but I seem to remember Obama was the only one of the candidates who DIDN’T say he would NOT appear on the planned Black Caucus hosted, Faux Nonnews broadcast debate? Is my memory faulty? If it’s not then what exactly is the differance between then and now?
PacificJohn
well said…I totally forgot to mention Mr. Post Partisan…he’ll reach across the aisle…he wants Republicans (who watch Fox)to join him in his crusade but his supporters don’t?…Not very unity ish..Why aren’t his supporters welcoming this opportunity to have Fox join the unity bandwagon?
Aren’t they being too partisan? Because that is not Obama’s message as I understand it. And after all, Fox says primarily nice things about Obama.It’s Hillary who everybody is trashing. Oh , I know…his supporters only act when Obama gives the the all clear. Rev. McClurkin…OK…none universal health care…OK…no interest rate caps…OK The only reason Obama declines is he is afraid to debate Clinton and lose momentum. Afraid. Or politically crass.
My own opinion is that Obama is being hawked by the media because they want the Repubs to win again, and Obama is beatable. Edwards wasn’t and he was trashed.
You’re faulty, to be sure.
Where are you getting your information about Dean???
“In June of 2005, here’s Howard Dean: “”My view is that Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party and that I don’t comment on Fox News.”
Feb 2007
“But the Nevada party organizers — and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean — said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox’s reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN. And one whose believability is much higher with Republicans than Democrats, according to a 2005 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Not apeep out of Dean since, so I assume he is ok with a FOX debate.
And did we require the other networks to donate their revenues to charities?
I’ve been getting emails from Move-On for the last week or so, the first asking “Which Democrat do you want Move-On to endorse? Come vote.” and the rest announcing that they’d chosen to endorse Obama.
Since they didn’t mention my candidate, I didn’t bother.
Now I don’t know if Move-On’s endorsement = fundraising, as I haven’t read any of the messages they’ve sent since. Damn shame they couldn’t back the real progressive in the race…
Are you the self appointed thought police? Is this what we have come to?
You intimidate people if they don’t regurgitate the Obama or left blogsphere talking points? Never mind that Obama’s failure to accept punctures his unity, post partisan message.
Finally, as to your sock puppet comment…Is that what Obama would say?
I’m not sure why this is an issue.
Barak Obama has been on Fox News regularly. He says it’s a good outreach to moderate Republicans and Independents.
Why bash Hillary for doing the same thing?
Bobzim,
Both Obama and Clinton have publicly pledged to Michigan and Florida to support reinstating them at the convention.
There’s really no way either candidate can go back on those promises……they NEED FLorida and Michigan to win the general.
I agree with the analysis but for (Joe Klein’s words?): “Obama’s messianic movement rhetoric”.
Per the comment above: The debate over FLA and Michigan is kind of odd – there was no campaign and not much effort (perhaps some by Clinton) to get on the ballot. The vote totals from there are not indicative of the will of the respective states Democratic voters.
KO has become totally anti Hillary…and is pushing propaganda too for GE (General Electric -big defense contractor) owned MSNBC—once he signed his new multi million dollar contract…the narrative changed…it’s anti Hillary now…no balance…no negative coverage on Obama. Hmmm Interesting. And didn’t Kos support Obama after getting his Newsweek gig with Karl Rove?
Oh, and I do not think there is a “front runner”. The race is a tie and each state and each person will decide on their own.
Gallup daily tracking shows a sharp uptick for Clinton Tues/Wed after Super Tuesday.
Clinton 52%
Obama 39%
Momentum Clinton; money follows.
I hear the Obama campaign has already conceded that Clinton will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Is there ANY big state, besides his own, that Obama has actually won?
So no matter how much the news hypes him he will lose the general election.
—-
No matter how much the MSM hypes any candidate there is no way to know who will win or lose. People claim Clinton will lose, they do not know. People claim Obama will lose, they do not know. Just like a football team predicted to win – that is why they play the game.
For instance as I am sure has been noted Clinton won California – if Obama is in the general he will win CA.
I for one can’t wait until the election is over. I was hoping the Clinton/Obama bickering would end or at least slow down after Sooper Tsunami Tuesday — unfortunately it may be getting worse. The way I see it, any one of the Dem candidates would be leaps and bounds better than the current administration or any one of the freaks the goopers are currently trying to install in the White house.
Is there ANY big state, besides his own, that Obama has actually won?
—-
The race is a tie. I think the nominee is based on delegates not what big states people win.
False again. Obama ran cable TV ads in Florida. Clinton did not. And of course, last I heard, there has not been a news black out in Florida. It was actually a more pure election. There was the biased news coverage with 80% favorable to Obama and 50% favorable to Clinton…Obama’s cable ads…What was missing? The prophet’s appearance at a rally? Florida pretty much resembles California in result. As for Michigan…give Obama all the delegates not going to Clinton…give him the entire anti Hillary vote..
Au contraire, redx.
Michigan is the only one that’s an “if.” Obama CHOSE to remove his name, but his campaign worked hard for “Uncommitted” to bring down HIllary’s win.
But FLorida…..all candidates on the ballot. NO ONE campaigned. Hillary wiped the floor with everybody….even Republicans.
Look at these numbers from FLorida:
Clinton 856,844
McCain 693,425
Romney 598,152
Obama 568,930
Obama couldn’t even beat Romney; let alone , McCain.
There is no way in hell the Democratic Party will disenfranchise the voters of Florida; it’s too crucial a swing state in the general election.
They’ll get reinstated at the convention. Even Obama has said he supports doing that.
Really, MSNBC has about 70% negative coverage on Clinton. I cannot believe for the life of me that Faux can really be worse.
If I were the Clinton campaign, I’d equate the two….
Me, a lowly viewer, I have started doing so. Faux? MSNBC? What’s the difference? I also have started equating Huffington, KOS and all of the larger bloggers with Fair and Balanced Faux.
Yep, this is a change election. It’s changed my loyalties completely.
Uh, no redx.
The race is NOT a tie.
Hillary won all the crucial big states: California, Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, New York , New Jersey, Massachusetts.
Obama won Illinois and a few states that will go red in November anyway. Georgia, Alabama, Kansas , North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, Missouri……..they’ll go RED. The states he wins in small Democratic primaries won’t help in November.
The BASE of the Democratic Party, as defined by the states she won, are choosing Hillary.
And the Obama campaign has already conceded they’ll probably lose Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to her.
It’s definitely NOT a tie. Obama’s campaign just wants you to THINK it is.
It’s not.
The race is about selecting the strongest Democrat for the ticket…that is the objective..to win the general election…not counting delegates if the result will be a weaker candidate. And the big states have a lot to do with winning general elections. And the general electorate is not the same as the primary electorate…so the exit polls must be examined in determining how wide and deep the support is. Obama has won a lot of caucuses, which are homogeneous and can be gamed…and is not representative of either all Democrats or voters in the general…Of the primaries,Ill. is the only big state Obama has won and it is solidly blue. Any wins in the red states will never mean much because they are lopsided Republican anyway and have few voters. The idea behind this process is to choose the candidate who most Democrat believe is the strongest candidate…and has proved himself in the big diverse states.
I’ve looked all over and cannot find where Obama agreed to re-seat FL and MI delegates. Someone link.
Yes, Obama is becoming the Democratic equivalent of the Mitt Romney cash machine. Both have lots of money to spend on the election. But Romney couldn’t buy an election with all his unlimited resources. And both McCain and Huckabee got their message out with much less money. I hope you’re not saying that it’s all about money and Obama’s overwhelming money advantage?
Joe :
I agree with you 100%. I have been a fan of Olbermann for a while, but lately, he’s been pretty hard to watch. Even though the repeated blinking of Abrams drives me nuts, he has tried to be fair, and he’s the only one on MSNBC to repeatedly discuss the unfair media treatment accorded Hillary, and the inappropriate media fawning over Senator Obama. CNN is just as bad, as are the other major (non-cable) networks. Surprisingly, once you can get past the odiferous personalities and spokespersons utilized by FOX news(most of them really do provoke an intense gag reflex), FOX news does seem to treat both Democratic candidates (left standing) with fairness, and they give equal credit and equal bashing to both Barack and Hillary. I work in an office building in Chicago where the local FOX news offices are located, and their local on-air personalities are, for the most part, exceptionally warm and friendly, down-to-earth folks who don’t appear to reflect or promote the national network line or political framework.
Very interesting comments. I was trying to figure out what democrats would really be reached on Fox that wouldn’t be reached through other channels. Doesn’t sound like your folks are Rs, but you’ve certainly described a plausible scenario, and an audience that might well tilt Hillary.
From AP Feb 4:
So unless Obama has come out on this in the last few days, you’re mistaken. If these delegates are seated, it will be because of the efforts of the Clinton Machine and that’s cheating!
I agree with you in principle…except…wouldn’t it help to know what David Axelrod is being paid by comparison first? What if Axelrod is making 10 million or more based on his percentage from all the advertising he is doing for Obama?
Using one’s own money like Hillary and Willard is a sign of weakness – contributions are a sign of support. Nice try, but you are nuts.
You think that there’s a chance the Democratic candidate (Obama or Clinton) will not win the big Blue states?…It’s inconceivable this cycle. Thus, this cycle will be played on the Rs home turf, Red states. Blues are a fire-wall miles high given the amount of loathing coastal voters have for W and the R party. Thus the most important thing is how you play in “Red” states.
Just a friendly reminder, don’t insult fellow commenters here at Firedoglake.
Thanks
I see little difference between FOX, MSNBC and CNN in the coverage of the democratic primary; in fact FOX is apparently more balanced according to an independent media observer. Hill is running to be President of the entire United States, and not just of yuppies and fickle independents. Whether she wins over FOX viewers (unlikely) or not, they need to hear from their future President so that they are (hopefully) less likely to demonize her in the future. The right-wing is very dispirited at the moment, and if it results in a detente from the slinging then it is good for the country. It is the Cheney and W approach to appear only on friendly news outlets. In fact, if she effectively rebuts partisan nonsense from the likes of Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, all the more power to her. Besides, isn’t Obama supposed to be the uniter and not the divider?
But Hillary isn’t claiming it as a big victory, is she? Obama is busy claiming he won all these second rate caucuses and primaries from states that won’t matter. Obama’s big win in South Carolina…remember…but South Carolina will never vote Democratic…no matter who is on the Dem ticket. Let alone, Idaho, Utah (mormon country), Kansas, Georgia, and all the other states Obama is bragging about. No one wants to be realistic about what those wins mean in real terms.
However, in Arkansas, Hillary can turn it Democratic…and possibly in Tennessee (though Al Gore lost his home state in 2000). Big difference.
You haven’t even heard what lily14 has to say!
“I also have started equating Huffington, KOS and all of the larger bloggers with Fair and Balanced Faux.”
Yeah, certainly true for Huffington. Brings back the bad memories of Arianna shilling for Republicans when her ex-husband was running for office. I’m so happy for Firedoglake and Emptywheel (Marcy) for some sense of balance and dignity.
But my point is that Obama’s supporters feel more powerful now that they have a major cash advantage and can outspend Hillary. I am merely pointing out that a cash advantage isn’t everything. Mitt outspent his rivals 4 or 5 or 10 to 1. And John Kerry loaned himself money…and John McCain I believe..
But for all of Obama’s cash advantage, so far it has not translated into wins in the big diverse states that matter for a general election. He has lost the big ones except for his home state. And he outspent Clinton in those states. Obviously, there is Texas, Ohio and Penn. And of course, his cash advantage helps him…it helps get out his message and organize.
What did I miss about the quote I cited?
Mitt wasn’t able to turn money into support. I think the Obama situation is a little different: he’s been turning support into money.
Money is most definitely not everything. The concern for the Clinton campaign is that their support isn’t turning into enough money to run the campaign they want to run.
I have to say I was very surprised at the money thing, and the Fox debate thing. Especially right after Super Tuesday. If they could have held off acknowledging it even another day or two, it wouldn’t have affected how people perceive Super Tuesday result.
In my view, it went from a tie in which the most irrationally exuberant Obama supporters were crushed and his ‘mo was stopped. To a jeez Hillary went all in and couldn’t put the new guy away.
At this point in time, Fox is often more balanced than MSNBC . You keep forgetting that Fox has good coverage of Obama…their talking points are Obama talking points…The Hillary bashing is consistent on all cable, with MSNBC standing out as the most biased…not Fox.
My mother mostly votes Democratic but she only watches FOX because she says she likes the graphics better.
Maybe she mentioned it so her supporters would get the message and donate more. Her supporters are generally not internet fluent…they are considerably more numerous and broad based…but not insofar as donating online. As for facebook and myspace…I think one of Obama’s supporters started facebook. But I have nothing but admiration for the marketing campaign of Obama’s…it is outstanding…they have turned him into a brand to be marketed…very savvy…not necessarily Presidential material…but great marketing and spin operation…however the media has totally cooperated until now. We have no idea what things will look like when McCain, the true war hero, is their darling, and Obama is the inexperienced feel good, empty vessel. That’s when the bubble is popped..when it is too late to reevaluate.
And this is why demonstrating support in big diverse states is so important. Obama has supporters and they donate money…and that creates tremendous advantages in organizing..and the caucuses show that…but this advantage has NOT turned into support from where it counts. Obama outspent Clinton in California by a lot…in the biggest most diverse state…and she won the youth vote (which did not come out in record numbers..only average), a big womens vote, Latinos… She won by 10 points after being outspent. That does say something. And it shouldn’t be ignored.
Winning by 10 points means little considering that Obama, a relative newcomer, is campaigning against a powerful, brand name, firmly entrenched machine of TWO political geniuses. The tag team of Bill And Hillary Clinton should be beating the crap out of somebody like Obama. But they are not for a reason.
KO has , for some sad reason begun to side with Tweety concerning the hatred of Hillary. On the night that Florida had their primary and Hillary showed up after the primary to speak to her supporters, you would have thought she had committed murder. Obama had ads running in Florida during the primary. Said he had a national ad buy and couldn’t keep them from showing in Florida. BUT when he made an ad buy on the Super Bowl, he had the ads run in ONLY the states having elections on Super Tuesday. Yet Keith and Tweety just kept going on about how terrible Hillary was and how she is Blah, blah blah. Obama broke the rules yet Hillary was excoriated for speaking after the polls closed on Super Tuesday. ANd she won big, despite Obama’s campaigning and having fund raisers in Fla. Just no fairness. I, who loved KO, have begun to look at him differently. Hillary Hatred is alive and well on all the channels. Not just FOX.
Who’s name was on the ballot? How would it be even remotely fair to suddenly include those states that did not even include a candidate just because Hillary has a contest on her hands?
And no one has shown me where Obama has come out in favor of seating those delegates.
I agree. I know that nearly everyone on the liberal blogosphere bows before Olbermann, and I agree that when he attacks Bush, torture, etc. he nails it. But watching him and chris matthews smirk and dismiss Clinton in a non-verbal and sometimes verbal way the night of Super Tuesday turned me off like nothing else could. I’ve only recently started watching TV again, I realize again why I stopped.
“Clinton undermines” are your operative words, and it is how she has handled any number of important positions/issues in the last seven years.
OBAMA ‘08
disclaimer: I support Obama
Having said that, the thought that either would even consider holding a debate on a channel that attempts to cloak its blatant sexism and racism as ‘reporting’ is stomach turning. Why give any sense of legitimacy to people who are unapologetically divisive? This is not an opportunity for anyone but Fox to give a platform to their repulsive paradigim and inject bile into the national discourse. I’m utterly at a lost as to why she would propose this?
No one can spin this, Fox represents the very thing that our party opposes and to even …oh, I am just done.
As has been noted numerous times in this thread, it is not just Faux news that is bad, at least when it comes to the Democratic primary. The Hillary bashing has been unrelenting and the Obama worship has been over the top. MSNBC is the worst. I guess you expect it from Chris Mathews, Joe Scarborough and Tim Russert but even Keith Olberman has been a disappointment.
My solution was to watch the Super Tuesday results on CNN with the mute button on. I couldn’t take listening to Gloria Borger or Carl Bernstein.
Hillary hate? Where? When? KO makes many of the same criticisms that Obama supporters make and the same criticisms that Hillary supporters level against Obama. We have to have these discussions, no matter how unpleasant it makes our candidate appear. Tweety is an all around waste of skin. He is an equal opportunity jack ass that minimizes what both of our candidates have achieved.
John McCain starts his general election campaign as of today. What possible logic is there in the Dems refusing to appear in front of the Fox audience? I get all the reasons to hate Fox, but this is a campaign. Cutting off a part of the electorate, especially in a season when the Dems are better positioned than ever to pick up Republican votes, makes no sense, particularly if it’s strictly for reasons of ideological purity. And I agree with what others have said. I like KO too (Maddow not so much) but after watching Matthews and KO literally ridicule Hillary the night of the Florida primary, I don’t blame her for not seeing such a bright line between the two networks.
People seem to forget that Fox Cable News relentlessly promoted the Iraq War…they begen their propaganda effort in support of Murdocks war agenda within weeks of the 9/11 attack. They have the blood of thousands of young American soldiers on their hands for promoting a war based on a pack of lies. The idea of a Democratic debate on Fox makes me sick in my stomach.
Let’s not forget the main reason Hillary agreed to the Fox debate: She has taken $125,000+ from News Corporation & FOX employees like Chairman Rupert Murdoch + President & COO Peter Chernin, etc.:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/…..038;sort=A
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/…..038;sort=A
Check out the below links and you’ll see that Hillary has clearly taken the most corporate $ of any candidate from either party from these industries:
Military & Defense Contractors (War-profiteers): http://www.opensecrets.org/pre……asp?sec=D
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate (Bankers/Wall Street): http://www.opensecrets.org/pre……asp?sec=F
Lawyers & Lobbyists: http://www.opensecrets.org/pre……asp?sec=K
Health Industry: http://www.opensecrets.org/pre……asp?sec=H
To add to the Fox vs MSNBC debate. MSNBC is currently showing an HRC campaign rally live from VA, Fox has Tom DeLay talking about McCain.
The people that watch Fox are not people that are going to be swayed by anything that our party has to say. To give them any platform by which they can inject THEIR agenda should be off the table. Fox’s viewers are not the people that we can ‘win’ over either by logic or persuasion as they aren’t moderates, they are rabid intolerant people.
I watched that too and at the time, I was still a staunch Edwards supporter and what I saw was them stating the facts. The Florida primary wasn’t going to count per the DNC and for her to be down there giving an acceptance/victor speech for a race where no one (not even my beloved Edwards could campaign) was asinine.
They weren’t reporting “the facts.” They positioned the primary as being completely worthless, because there were no delegates at stake. But 1.4 million people went to the polls and chose Hillary by a wide margin. Of course it doesn’t have the weight of a genuine primary. But since those guys don’t seem to have any problem killing hours talking about opinion polls, don’t you think they could have given a couple of minutes to the actual meaning of the event? We get it, no delegates were involved. But the fact that Hillary had such a wide margin, especially coming off of Obama’s big win in South Carolina, deserved a certain amount of analysis.
The two of them were openly mocking her, saying “We don’t even know why she’s there.” Matthews said “we said we weren’t going to cover it, and here we are talking about it.” Any idiot knows why she’s there. Her campaign put on a victory event. Well guess what? Every election night event of every candidate is staged by the campaigns. When they cover the speech of the fourth place finisher in some primary, do they say “We don’t even know why he’s here”? Of course not. It’s a little silly for them to get the vapors over covering and event staged by the campaign. Every goddamn event they go to is staged by a campaign.
That, and Matthews’ statements on Leno like “if you don’t cry during an Obama speech, you’re not an American,” reinforced my conviction that Hillary doesn’t owe them any better treatment than Fox.
As for the notion that Fox viewers would never vote Dem, I think that’s a silly assumption about a very large group of viewers. Not every Republican is part of some monolithic belief system. There audience is a little big to just write off.
I’d be more upset with her, but frankly whenever she’s done anything to help push back against the conservative noise machine she gets no reward from “progressive” media whatsoever. She sent Howard Wolfson onto Fox to defend Yearly Kos and that place pretty much spews Clinton hate 24/7 (not the Front-pagers, although Kos is clearly in the bag for Obama, it’s the diarists and commenters). She stays and votes against the MoveOn censure while Obama bolts and skips the vote and MoveOn not only endorses Obama, they’re raising money for him.
Obama can dis progressives and liberals all he wants and there’s never any accountability for it. We simply get another round of What Obama Really Meant from his supporters. Any time Clinton deviates, no matter the disgraceful treatment she’s receiving on “acceptable” news channels like MSNBC differs little from Fox’s coverage, and she’s some sort of traitor to the cause.
Absolutely right! That was a low point for KO, and a huge disappointment to me that yet another “hero” had feet of clay. To be charitable, I think that he was being locker room giddy being locked up with Tweety.
I think you’re on to something else, too. I think KO is out of his depth wrt predicting races and political intrigue, and has treaded water for a while now. But he is getting better, and it’s clear when he “gets it”, as he slaps Tweety on occasion.
Your not reading what I wrote but nevermind, I was not defending Tweety, i waas not talking about some diarist on Dkos, I was responding to what you wrote about KO. But people are going to read into it what they want and to try to convince them otherwise is like arguing with the universe.
I guess then we can agree to disagree but Jane thanks for the post.
Hard to believe that we were watching the same thing. Clearly a Rashomon effect. I, too, was an Edwards supporter at that time, but this became the tipping point for me. When I saw Olbermann and Tweety mock Hill for thanking her supporters, and watched them belaboring the point that there were no delegates so WTF was she doing out there, it got me really angry. Here were thousands of Floridan democrats still coming out to vote knowing that the party had, in essence, disenfranchised them, and MSM (CNN was no better as I recall) was dismissing them like they were nobodies. From that day onwards I realized that sexism and misogyny were so entrenched that even someone as smart as Olbermann couldn’t realize his biases. And I was resolved to get our first woman President elected!
I’m late to this post today. NBC has proven over the course of many years to be nearly as biased against the Clintons as FOX.
Besides, the Obama camp is not saying ‘no’ just to the FOX debate – in fact, Clinton invited him to join her in all 4, and they have not accepted any yet. They can stand on principle in declining the FOX debate – but then I expect them never to do interviews again on FOX either – but what about the debates on other networks?
It is clear the Obama loses votes with every debate appearance, so I can’t say I blame him. Good for Clinton to agree to give a speech on the same night at the Jefferson Jackson Dinenr in Virginia this weekend. At least we have one candidate willing to challenge the ohter on his/her own turf.
Amen
Wasn’t responding to you at all and I am not about to get into a debate with you when you make generalities but if you like, please refer to my reply at @200 and 201
I was only responding to something you wrote in a public forum. I’m not debating you anymore than ChrisO was.
See reply@ 200, 201 and 205
Hmmm, testy, just like Obama. :-) OK, I’ll hold my peace.
They disenfranchised themselves. They were told what would happen and they did it anyway. Actions have consequences.
No, not testy, just refuse to engage in a debate with someone who uses generalities and with whom I already agree to disagree with.
BobZim @182 & 184
Yes, the reason is there is no doubt Obama has pulled new people into the process and the least informed are, generally, the most easily inspired [by empty rhetoric].
Second, while Obama wasn’t on the Michigan ballot (of his own choosing) he did appear on the Florida ballot and you are incredibly naive (as is your candidate) if you thought for a minute that those delegates were not going to be reinstated at the convention when both states are critical in the general election. And they should be reinstated as those voters do not deserve to be disenfranchised because their state party structure chose to make the bogus primary design an issue. Let’s just hope these acts result in meaningful changes to the process.
See 209.
Maybe she can get more money from Frank Giustra, Denise Rich, Norman Hsu, Aaron Tonken, Peter F. Paul, Sant S. Chatwal, the IPA, Yah Lin Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, Jeffrey Epstein, John K.H. Lee, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ng Lap Seng, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Ron Burkle, and Vin Gupta.
Does anyone know if the below is true? Taken from Politico.com with regards to Hillary’s loan to herself.
also i read taylormarsh.com and hillaryis44.org and noquarterusa.net
Is that the whine you’ll use when Obama is compared to McCain the true war hero? You’ll get no sympathy when complaining how unfair it is to compare your candidate’s character with that of the real war hero, John McCain. It looks ridiculous to sound like a cry baby when you lose…and the reason is immaterial. It does not matter where Obama began or that he lost by 10 points instead of 15. Or that he had momentum 3 days ago but on voting day, she surged…are you suggesting it was unfair that the election wasn’t delayed a few days to give him a better chanced? No one loses by that much who has broad popular support. Excuses don’t cut it.
I read exactly what you wrote. I’m criticizing Matthews, and you’re saying what he did was perfectly appropriate, but you’re not “defending” him? By stating exactly why I thought the coverage of Florida should have been more balanced, and making the case that the Clinton campaign running an event on election night was perfectly appropriate, I responded directly to your statement that her presence was “asinine.” You may not agree with my points, but I feel to see how you interpret this as not responding to you.
Digby has a wonderful commentary, High School Psychodrama, on MSNBC’s biased coverage during Super Tuesday. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
ATTENTION HILLARY SUPPORTERS ! SPECIAL NOTICE:
Due to the under-handed tactics and inner-party polarization of Hillary Clinton, millions of Obama supporters WILL NOT support her should she become the nominee. This, in part, is due to the fact that many feel that she is already trying to cheat her way to the nomination by claiming victory in Michigan and Florida. Hillary Clinton has totally alienated even her own party members. This is sad….but true. She will not win the Presidency without full Democratic support. Your continued support for Clinton is actually a vote for McCain. Sorry…..these are just the facts! The really sad thing is….we used to like the Clintons !
One new slick Clinton tactic is the request for weekly debates. The Clintons know that when Obama spends time in a state….they get to know him and he does well. So if they can disrupt his campaign schedule they’d feel successful. And if he refuses….they’ll act like he’s in hiding from the debates. THE TRICKS NEVER END !!!!!! BUT IT’S ALL IN VAIN…..she’ll never win the presidency without Dem support…..WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“millions of Obama supporters WILL NOT support her should she become the nominee”
Oh, OK. Your implicit threat convinced me to see the error of my ways. Kumbaya.
“She will not win the Presidency without full Democratic support. Your continued support for Clinton is actually a vote for McCain. Sorry…..these are just the facts!”
Actually, she appears to be leading when it comes to traditional democrats (excluding, of course, the AA vote, understandably). Obama’s strength is with independents and new (youthful) voters. And the number of votes that she got in the big populous states overwhelm anything the McCain received in the same states. But facts are facts. Can’t argue with them.
“Colossally stupid”
One of your most perceptive posts, Jane.
Politically, she and her staff just don’t understand what’s happening.
Not. A. Clue.
She shouldn’t give Fox the time of day. Not only because they are the people who’ve savaged she and her family for practically every minute of the 11-plus years they’ve been in existence, but because it gives Obama the opportunity to define her as being that much closer to the republicans.
Which he WILL do. :o)
kmdata: Democrats can win without taking a single Southern state, other than Florida which isn’t culturally Southern except in the far north.
Even so, either Clinton or Obama has a shot at some of the border states. Not Alabama.
i was addressing another post that stated the KO was unfair to Hillary. I responded that he rightly clowned her because she was down in Florida giving a victory speech like it had been a contest where all candidates had been able to campaign. It was a totally just criticism
In this election cycle, amazingly Fox has not been anywhere near as bad as MSNBC/NBC. Big Tent Democrat over at Talk Left is now calling them the Obama Network. And it isn’t just the messianic Obama message, it’s the 24 hour a day ranting of the Clinton hate. So I have to ask: why wouldn’t Hillary prefer even Fox to more of that crap? Why should MSNBC/NBC continue to be rewarded and Fox be punished? Yes, we all know what Fox is. But when they are actually less biased than another network that is getting a lot of the debates, I can’t see any reason to continue to punish them. Perhaps a better idea is to do all debates on PBS and don’t reward any of them.
I don’t see Obama having a problem appearing on Fox. Especially in these clips where he’s yakkin it up on with Fox and Friends on the preznit’s “committment” to following through on AIDs and then on the surge. Message seems all nicely tailored to a Faux friends audience.