by ragekage, Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:32:15 AM EDT
In a stunning move, thousands of hardcore Clinton supporters, upset their brethren are more interested in the Democratic party than their candidate, quoted an article from the Washington Post about Obama supposedly exaggerating his family's connection to John F. Kennedy.
Unfortunately for them, ten seconds of research would have prevented them (and the Washington Post) from looking silly!
by Larr Johnson, Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
DCMedia Girl told me the other day that this year the media is doing the worst job ever of providing honest, genuine investigative reporting. Damn is she right. Two examples.
First, tonight's breaking news about John McCain and his alleged political sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicky Iseman
. I learned of this story in December 2007. I know one of the sources for the story. And I know that both the New York Times and USA Today were sitting on the story. Do you think Republicans would have wanted to know this information in December before the primaries started? I think so. But the New York Times decided, hell, let's wait till McCain has it sewn up.
Second, Obama's ties to a one time communist (Frank Marshall Davis see also
) and self-confessed terrorist (William Ayers) (at least this is how the Republicans will be certain to play this info). This information has started to trickle out, finally, but no thanks to the news media. In fact, I was contacted Monday afternoon by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs. He wrote:
by fairleft, Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:27:35 AM EST
The 'Yes We Will' video didn't hurt Hillary. I thought the media, like the Obama fans who've pushed it, would try to make a 'Dean Scream' moment from the cell phone video below but, hey!, they didn't. Here it is, again for most of you (Oops, it looks like mydd doesn't accept video embeds, so here's the link, anyway):
Why didn't they? I don't know, but speculate first of all the video/sound quality is just too poor. But if it hadn't been 'grainy video' who knows how the press would've run with it? (Of course, if it had been a good-quality video, then viewers might hear the crowd loudly (described below as "young and boisterous") joining Hillary's (better miked) "Yes we will" cry.) But also, the Clinton campaign's aggressive reaction to MSNBC and the David Shuster "pimped out" comment may have scared the assholes off a bit. Good on ya, Hill, for politely kicking some hater ass there.
by a siegel, Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
For anyone who pays close attention, it is clear that John McCain is far behind both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Global Warming. McCain's campaign might be a "Green Straight Talk Express" but, when given the opportunity to act, Senator McCain's reality is more like a Dirty Energy Twisted Delay Action Machine.
But, for the Washington Post, the significant differences between a McCain and Obama or Clinton Administration aren't worthy of note.
by bowiegeek, Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:02:28 PM EST
Michael Gerson, fresh on the heels of the Republican debate, reasons in a new editorial that a race between Obama and McCain would be the best for America. Obama's message of change is better suited, he writes, because Hillary's positions on abortion are too radicial-- "safe, legal, and rare."
Gerson, a member of the much frothed-over CFR and author of Heroic Conservatism, regards Obama as more honorable despite what he sees as Clinton's strengths:
Her health-care plan, for example, could be the basis for serious discussions with Republican congressional leaders. Her national security team seems more skilled and experienced than Barack Obama's. And her various positions on Iraq have always been slippery enough to avoid specific, hand-tying commitments on troop withdrawals, leaving her the option of responsibility (though, like the other Democratic candidates, she seems incapable of using the word "victory" in a time of war).
Still, he goes on, her candidacy is an invitation for reminisces of:
"I didn't inhale." Kathleen Willey. Whitewater. "Two for the price of one." Polling to select vacation sites. Baking cookies. Joycelyn Elders. Hillarycare. "What the meaning of the word 'is' is." Blue dress. "That woman." Lewinsky, as noun and verb.
Nevermind that thoroughly disgraced Jeff Gerth published a book harping on just those details that failed to earn money even as NewsMax magazine's subscription free gift. (Obama might have acceded to the offer as his campaign clearly owns a copy of the book. He has frequently repeated a discredited claim from it on campaign stops.)
The Clintons are unprincipled and untrustworthy, he proclaims, likening them to racist Alabama governor George Wallace and denouncing them for their criticism of Obama's choice to be, "God forbid, ... defending Ronald Reagan."
And so, Reagan-loving abortion-hating, Gerson reasons that Obama would be the best choice for the Democratic nomination. In light of these new facts, I must rethink whether or not I am supporting the right candidate. I hope everyone does the same.