Wake me up when Obama and his supporters march on MSNBC. This is a targeted response designed to shut down any opposition to Obama, Hillary, if and when she is mentions is just a strategic ally to be discarded when the mission of shutting down ABC is accomplished. Sorry, not buying.

Dead right there...

When Hillary is policy-wonking, she is scary good, she makes Bill AND Obama pale by comparison.

When she goes attack-dog, she is lousy at it?

She comes off as "shrill" and yes, I expect to be firebombed for that, but that is how my girlfriend describes it to me....

If she was GOOD at it, but it's the moments when it is clear she is reading from a script someone (Penn?) fed her the lines?  It comes off as phony and contrived.

The ProHillary crowd loves it, because they think she is bringing down Obama...

But, what she is REALLY doing is reinforcing the stereotype of her (which, btw, I think is bull) that she will say anything she needs to to win.

She's not adding to her GE vote total here by pileing on;

She is just convincing the independents, if it's her and McCain, to vote for Teflon John.

You are no doubt referring to Move On's controversial and ill advised 'Betray us-Petraeus' campaign?  I personally believe that the national media betrays a persistent and insidious bias towards the Republicans which has been overshadowed so far in our Democratic nomination controversies, consider:

It would be refreshing to place the likes of Gibson and Stephanopoulos and their peers on the witness stand for a change to explain their choices and prejudices. Why did they require Democrats to make tax-cutting pledges that are based on bad economics and worse journalism? Why should they focus on Obama's tenuous connection with a reprehensible but inconsequential figure like former Weatherman Bill Ayers, when they have never mentioned the White House coddling of Cuban exile terrorists? Why do they obsess over the "bitter" gaffe by Obama while passing so lightly over the confusion of Sunni and Shia groups by McCain, supposed master of foreign policy?

Details may be different but the double standard remains the same. If the coverage of this election already induces a nauseating sense of déjà vu, be warned. It will only get worse.

Joe Conason - Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules" Salon 18 Apr 08

It is time for Democrats to take the initiative in exposing this bias and if the national media, with all the resources at it's disposal, is to be called to account I can't think of a better way to do it than through a grass-roots, independently subscribed organisation like Move On.  We are going to need a voice.  Obama seems to get it too:

But Obama drew by far the roughest questioning, as one woman noted when she took the microphone at the Raleigh rally. "You were really pummeled," she told him. All those questions on Ayers, Wright, flag pins and guns made her wonder about the general-election attacks that could come. "What is your strategy to beat the Republicans in November?" the woman asked Obama.

"That was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me," Obama responded. "That is what they will do. They will try to focus on all these issues." He said he would answer the attacks "sharply and crisply" and seek to turn the debate from "tit-for-tat silliness" to serious issues such as the economy and Iraq. "If Republicans come at me, I will come right back at them," Obama asserted, to loud cheers.

Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr. - Obama Looks To Turn Debate Into a Victory Washington Post 18 Apr 08

Whomever the nominee we will face this pernicious national bias, now, with cable bubble-heads as intermediaries, more than ever.  In spite of Hillary's assertions to the contrary Obama understands this and we as Democrats need to as well.  Whether Move On is your cup of tea or not we must do something and we must be prepared to do it soon and well.  Any suggestions?

The Right Wing 527's will attempt to chew up and spit out anyoe we nominae...  That is their goal in life and stated purpose...  They are Right-wing...  code for Republican and do not want a Democrat to win period.

The only questions are, should Obama get the nomination, will Clinton supporters sit idly by and giggle or will they defend the nominee, and vice versa should Clinton get the nomination.  

agreed 100%

What's cute about that comment is that, each and every time you have trolled me (and that is what you are doing), I have responded to you with the facts that support fully my position.

This is something you have never done.

I really don't mind when people disagree with me.  But at this point, you are pure troll, and it's time to rate you as such.

because this stuff is real and if he's nominated, it IS probably going to cause Obama probs in the GE.

Can't you see that possibility looming?

Before I respond point-by-point, I would like to say that I think it's perfectly fine for Clinton to stay in the contest until ALL voting is completed.

"I read your post twice and cannot understand your point.  The public hasn't finished voting yet.  Barack Obama worked hard to make sure the public would not be allowed to vote in MI.  The public has voted in FL in a fair way, but Barack is working hard to make sure those votes don't count either."

Astonishing.  1) Obama had no say in what the DNC did in MI and FL, 2) He wasn't on the ballot, 3) he never campaigned in Florida, while Clinton was IN Florida (though not in any campaign capacity apparently) when the voting took place and 4) Less voters voted in MI and FL than Republicans.  Obviously, many voters decided not to vote those days.

"Yet, despite efforts to ignore two critical swing states, it is still well possible for Hillary to wind up winning the most votes when this nominating process is over."

Even when you add in FL and MI as-is, which would of course be unfair since he wasn't on the ballot in MI, Obama would STILL be ahead among pledged delegates.  That's with the enormous advantage she gains by the inclusion of the MI delegates.

"But, the Obama campaign doesn't want to have that.  So now they are attempting to use Superdelegates to shut the process down before it's over.  Dean has said he wants to make sure that Superdelegates cast their votes without knowing the will of the people."

Dean is wrong in saying that.  I don't agree.  However, when the voting is over in June, the delegates should decide.  The pledged delegates (decided by the voting public) should be more a factor than superdelegates who by the way represent the democratic party, not their states or constituency.

"However, I'm not talking about any of that.  I'm talking about the way in which "generation Obama" has been willing to savage good, loyal Democrats that have served us for years, dismember admirable public leaders like Tavis Smiley, and wage an all-out assault on our collective political resume, all in the name of some manufactured hatred of Clinton."

I'm not familiar with this, if you want to elaborate feel free.

"Furthering this self-destructive course, Netroots has now apparently decided to excise or purge any non-believers from the party."

Says who?  First off, why are you linking Obama to this, or saying it's his fault?  I'm reminded that Obama actually supported Lieberman quite significantly when he was up for re-election in 2006.  That was very much against the Netroots.

"I see this temper tantrum the same way.  Witnessing Obama perform so terribly when faced with the mildest hint of media scrutiny, the Crusade now turns its sights on mass media - which is ironic considering that Obama exists primarily as a figment of the mass media."

Really, because it seems to me that he improves when faced with media scrutiny once given the opportunity to counter.

"Since the media created him, supporters might want to be cautious about biting that particular hand.  He can be destroyed by the media just as easily - and as the saying goes, there is nothing the media loves more than to build someone up before tearing them down."

The media didn't create him.  You're not giving him enough credit for he has accomplished.  That Clinton and Obama have gotten this far in this "gotcha" climate of media coverage is extraordinary.  You do them both a disservice by claiming that either of them was manufactured by the media.

Well played, Bob.  Obama faced, for the first time, the same kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced since the start of the debates.

Add to your list of Democratic stalwarts that have been ex-communicated by Obama supporters: Paul Krugman and Bill Clinton (and his legacy)

As far as "shutting the process down before knowing the will of the people" - this primary has heard the will of the people more than any primary I can remember. We normally have a candidate picked long before most states have voted in a primary. In Ohio, I have never had my vote count. Most of us don't bother to vote since it's either decided or it's obvious who it will be. The idea of having to go through every state before it's done sounds insane. We're going to know where this is going in the very near future.

Holy war is probably, especially in light of the political climate in the Middle East, a mildly disturbing choice of words to say the least...

How does this situation equate with a Holy War in your eyes?

You are seriously disturbed.  And you must be a troll.

No, the media is in the tank for McCain...

Focus please.

Actually, bloggers have brought significant pressure on Chris Matthews and on whomever it was who made the "pimping" remarks.  Moreover, I believe that MSNBC was protested - just this past week - by Clinton supporters.  So, if your point is that this is a unique occurrence, I think that that is factually inaccurate.  The media has been called on its more blatant biases against Clinton as well.

I'm happy to stipulate that the media has treated Hillary like crap as well.  But I do, respectfully, think it's slightly different when the "trivial" issues constitute 45 minutes of asking variations on "Senator Obama, why exactly is it that you hate America?."  

"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face al-Qaeda. And that's what's coming," Fox News boss Roger Ailes said Tuesday.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/200 7/06/fox_news_chiefs.html

vs.

"Again if he can't answer questions from poor ole stephanapolous he has no business running for the highest position in the land"

As my friend Kanye would say, "You're saying the same thing like a synonym"

That's so very disingenuous. He can and did answer them. He answered and fended off a 3 person tag team for most of th