A Challenge To Big Media and Big Blogs

We have a challenge to Big Media outlets. We have a challenge to Big Blogs.

Our challenge concerns long time Obama friend and benefactor Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

* * *

Yesterday we wrote about the latest bit of dissembling chutzpah from Big Media and their ugly stepchild – Big Blogs.

The latest bit of dissembling chutzpah from Big Media came in a Washington Post article detailing the anti-Hillary bias in Big Media and the “free ride” Obama has received. Why “chutzpah”? Why is an article detailing the non-vetting of Obama and the Big Media anti-Hillary slant “dissembling”? Because like a piano player in a whorehouse, the Washington Post, Big Media, and Big Blogs pretend they don’t know what is happening upstairs or what can be done about it. Big Media and Big Blogs just keep playing that piano.

Our point is that Big Media and Big Blogs have created that anti-Hillary slant in their stories — they are not innocent bystanders. But more to the point, Big Media and Big Blogs have it in their power to correct the anti-Hillary bias and also end the Obama “free ride” and inform the public BEFORE the voting starts.

Which brings us to Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Many Big Media blowhards and Big Blog blowhard clones discussed the shocking Washington Post article.

Glenn Thrush of Newsday, denied the main premise of the Washington Post article of anti-Hillary Big Media bias, but then Thrush wrote this on target summation:

Ben Smith weighs in with an interesting point : that Chicago-land stories on Obama ‘s odd real estate dealings, which the Clintons say has been underplayed, have been too LOCAL to appeal to the national pack and therefore don’t “have the same array of Beltway forces driving it.”

Counter question: Was Whitewater any less parochial?

Ben Smith at Politico had comments on the “free ride” question too, including this:

ALSO: See Glenn Thrush’s different take, which compares Rezko to Whitewater, and notes that there was a lot of scrutiny of the latter. I think the comparison’s pretty apt — not, in the end, the crime of the century — but it’s worth keeping in mind that as this hostile Wall Street Journal timeline points out, Whitewater “fade[d] from the campaign” soon after Gerth’s March 8, 1992, and surfaced as a huge issue much later and in the White House.

Smith’s curiosity on the “apt” Rezko story is non-existent today. The attitude is ‘why vet today when you can vet tomorrow’ – after the voting. To Smith’s credit he seems to understand that the Rezko story, like Whitewater will provide endless hours of Big Media amusement in the future.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall was busy playing the piano for the “girls” upstairs.

I really hope the Obama camp is kidding when they say Barack is the most scrutinized candidate in the race. If they’re not, they’re living in a fantasy world that makes me question whether they’re up to the rigors of a national campaign.

Let me be clear: there’s legitimate scrutiny of legislative records, policy positions, personal finances, history of decisions made in tough, pressure-filled situations (the only really legitimate meaning of character), etc. There’s been some of that and should probably be more.

Then there’s the collective assault that constitutes modern press ‘scrutiny’, especially for a Democrat who generally has to deal with the tag team of the national political press and the regrettably much more able and ruthless GOP oppo research cadre, which has an established feeding operation mainlined to most national political reporters.

It ain’t fair; it ain’t right; but it’s the reality. And if he thinks he’s already gotten that, well … what’s he been smoking?

Taylor Marsh had a “wonders never cease” moment at Josh Marshall’s mild notice that his “marvelous” Obama has not been vetted. Maybe like Ben Smith, Josh Marshall will wait until the “ruthless GOP oppo research cadre” explains who the real Obama is and explains with more force than the swiftboaters – the full Obama/Rezko story – complete with TV ads.

Josh Marshall and his fellow piano players are not innocent bystanders in the vetting process. Big Media and Big Blogs and all the blowhards employ an “aw shucks” attitude but the question remains: why are they not vetting Obama? Why are they not lifting the Rezko rock before the election?

* * *

Which brings us to our challenge to these piano players in Big Media and Big Blogs: Prove us wrong. Show us where we are wrong in the Obama benefactor and friend, the indicted Antoin “Tony” Rezko, story.

To help the piano players, here in brief, is what is without dispute known about Obama and just some of his Rezko entanglements: [Kudos to the Chicago Sun-Times which layed out the undisputed Rezko facts (link HERE).]

Obama worked for a politically connected law firm in Chicago. Obama, while at the law firm (and later) helped pump tens of millions of dollars – government dollars – to his friend and benefactor Rezko via Rezko’s company Rezmar. The tens of millions of dollars in government subsidies were for housing projects Rezko (via Rezmar) was involved in. Neither Rezko, nor his partners in the housing venture had any prior experience to in the housing field – but Rezko/Rezmar still got tens of millions in government money.

Some of the money in government subsidies went to buy tenements in Obama’s state senate district. Rezko treated the mostly African-American tenants with contempt. No heat, no hot water in at least one particulary cold winter. Rezko claimed he did not have money to provide the heat and hot water – but Rezko did have enough money to donate to Obama.

Thanks in part to Rezko fundraising and donations Obama was elected to the state senate. Obama, now a state senator still worked for clients at the law firm. Rezko was a client of the law firm. Obama, as state senator, wrote letters to get Rezko many millions more in government subsidies.

Obama, again with the help of Rezko donations and fundraising, was elected a U.S. Senator. Michelle and Obama, hoping to live in a house they deemed worthy of their new stature, wanted to buy a big house they could not afford. The house cost  $1.65  $2.3 million. Obama made a deal with the doctor who owned the house. The seller agreed with Obama to sell the house separately from the house’s side yard. Obama purchased the parcel of land with the house at a discounted price. On the very same day, Rezko’s wife, bought the side yard at full price. Michelle and Obama got their $1.65 million house.

Michelle and Obama move into the house. The Rezko paid for yard, remains unused by Rezko. Obama pays the bills for the upkeep of the yard, which Rezko now owns, but which originally was the yard of the Obama house.

Later, with Rezko’s pending indictment in the news, Obama buys part of the yard from Rezko’s wife.

* * *

Questions we have raised about the above undisputed facts include:

What value did Obama’s “community organizer” ties have if Obama did not know tenants in his state senate district were freezing in the Chicago winter?

If Obama did not know what was going on in his own senate district why didn’t he know?

Obama himself says the question is should he have known? Obama has never answered that question. Should state senator Barack Obama have known about his freezing constituents?

If Obama did not know what was going on in his small state senate district, in tenements his benefactor and slumlord friend Rezko owned, why is Obama ready to lead an entire, much larger country?

Did Obama know about his freezing constituents? Did Obama turn a blind eye, ignoring the freezing constituents and protecting his slumlord friend and fundraiser? Who was Obama really representing?

The Republicans are ready to pounce on Obama’s Rezko entanglements. Some have overtly commented in great detail about Obama/Rezko already.

* * *

Has anyone in Big Media/Big Blogs interviewed the freezing tenants to discover if they did in fact complain to state senator Obama?

Has anyone in Big Media/Big Blogs asked Obama if he has been interviewed by federal prosecutors regarding the pending trial of Rezko? Has anyone asked the federal prosecutors?

Did the former Obama law firm (also investors in Rezko schemes) ever turn over to the Chicago newspapers the (gasp!) billing records they promised (then reneged on)? These (gasp!) billing records would help clear up exactly what work Obama performed for Rezko/Rezmar. Are these (gasp!) billing records those Obama cannot seem to locate anywhere in his files?

Is Obama’s former law firm, hiding from the truth? Some of the partners in the law firm were also investors in Rezko schemes? Did Obama invest in Rezko schemes?

Have the slimy Gerth and the New York Times, which reported daily for many years on $50,000 lost in a land deal in Arkansas at all interested in vetting Obama?

Maybe Obama’s “factcheck” website will accept our challenge and answer questions about Rezko.

Maybe Taylor Marsh and/or eriposte of TheLeftCoaster will subject their sharp minds to explore Obama’s Rezko entanglements and tell us if/how we are wrong. Maybe Josh Marshall will stop the piano playing and decide to do some quick catchup reading on Rezko. Maybe Glenn Thrush will bother to examine the Rezko entanglements.

By our reckoning, Obama got a big house thanks to Rezko’s assistance as well as a discount which adds up to a $925,000 “in-kind” contribution to Obama. Rezko got millions in Obama funneled government money. Obama’s constituents suffered.

Does anyone in Big Media/Big Blogs know how to spell Quid Pro Quo?

Prove us wrong.

* * *

[To assist Big Media/Big Blogs we provide the following links to a few stories we have previously written about Obama/Rezko:

Obama’s Log Cabin

Obama’s $925,000 Question

The Chicago Collector

Old Chicago Politics – Obama Style

The Senator From Rezko, Part I

Obama – Turning Pages, Part II

The Case Of The Missing State Senator

Obama Fights The Facts

Help Tim Russert Question Barack Obama]


232 thoughts on “A Challenge To Big Media and Big Blogs

  1. We had a wonderful pro-Hillary blogger at daily kos who was pushing the Rezko story in her posts. Admin banned her. Conspiracy theories are bannable offeses at dkos, and admin there deemed Rezko a conspiracy theory.

  2. Talking about Rezko gets you banned from Daily Kos. Unbelievable, huh? Apparently, if you write the administrators and complain that someone is spinning conspiracy theories – which is the category that talking about Rezko falls into – you will be banned. A poster who had been there for a few years, was just banned last week. I scrolled through her comments and they all look pretty reasonable to me.

    So, Kos (or is it Hunter?) have wrapped discussions of Rezko into the same lot as 9/11 conspiracy theories. From what I understand, the Rezko land deal has been “thoroughly investigated” and Obama did not do anything wrong. Obama will link you to a statement of Obama’s as proof that he did nothing wrong.

    I’m reminding people that Madison Guaranty had already been cleared by the Resolution Trust when Bill was running for office, and that Republican prosecutor Fiske specifically cleared Clinton before Starr began investigating Whitewater as well.

    The Clinton’s got through the Starr investigation because they had nothing like the Rezko land deal in their past. We need to be pointing that out.

  3. The sentence above should say “Obama supporters will link you to a statement of Obama’s” to prove he did nothing wrong.

    BTW, admin, I think you have a sentence wrong in your article. The first mention of the house’s price that you have says the house was “$1.65 million”. Isn’t it $2.3 million?

    BTW, can we prove that during the winter that Rezko wasn’t providing heat and water to the tenants in that building, that he did make a donation to Obama’s campaign? That would be pretty juicy.

  4. The Kooks thought electronic voting machine problems were conspiracy theories too. They banned discussion of the topic. Now the voting machine problem is recognized as a real threat. The new Democratic Secretary of State in Ohio commissioned a report (another one of many) which details the problems.

    Maybe the Kooks will read our link to what Republicans Tucker Carlson and Ferguson think of the Rezko story and how to use it in any general election.

  5. Was she actually banned by Kos or Admin or was it from troll rating autoban? I can’t see Kos banning that. I could be wrong though. It has really gotten bad over there.

  6. I read a reference yesterday in a thread to contacting Hunter about such stuff. Perhaps it was in Mark W’s diary the other day.

    The poster in question was repeatedly accused of advancing “conspiracy theories” and received a warning to quit posting GOP talking points.

  7. Basement angel, thanks, our strikethrough for some reason did not take the first time. The house originally did cost $2.3 million, then Obama got the discount and Rezko “help” and only paid $1.65 million.

    Obama supporters conflate the 2 known Obama/Rezko real estate deals regarding Obama’s house.

    They ignore the actual purchase of the house which reeks. The supporters like to only refer to the purchase of the yard which was done when Rezko needed money because he was about to be indicted and his business was falling apart. Obama paid top dollar to Rezko for the strip of yard when Rezko needed the money. This “strip of yard” deal is what they refer to as “aboveboard”. They never talk about the quid pro quo on the actual house/yard deal.

    As to the charge that Rezko donated money to Obama while not providing heat to Obama constituents is right at the beginning of the Sun-Times article we linked to.


    “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago’s South Side.

    It was just four years after the landlords — Antoin “Tony” Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru — had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

    Rezko and Mahru couldn’t find money to get the heat back on.

    But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building. “

  8. We need to take these facts directly to DKos and the other big blogs, in the form of diaries and entries, and get the truth out. Yes, the environmental is biased/hostile/silly, but the site traffic to those sites means lots of eyeballs see the content.

  9. Berkely Vox, we tried to slim down the story. We left out all the pizza stuff and the Michelle/Stroger/Chicago Suicide stuff, all the law partners stuff – we left out tons of material we have written previously.

    The story is simply one of a quid pro quo. Obama got Rezko millions, Rezko got Obama millions (in fundraising help) and a big house. Obama then represented Rezko and screwed his own constituents.

    We had to dumb it down, its the only way the Big Media can digest stories (unless its about the Clintons in which case they follow every cul-de-sac, and every permutation and nuance).

    If this was a Hillary story, Josh Marshall would have written 50 articles by now.

  10. What is scariest about this whole story to me? It may turn out that Obama did nothing technically wrong (though it stinks to high heaven.) But it’s the timing,

    Tony Rezko’s trial begins in February, not long after Super Tuesday. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama were the presumptive nominee at that point, and his name turned up in some documents during that trial? Bombshell! Regardless of whether it was explainable or not, the Republicans would have a field day. This crap needs to be looked into NOW, and every rock turned over before we get blindsided with it. If he’s clean, great. That can be put behind us. But having it thoroughly vetted and coming up clean is NOT the same as accepting his cursory explanation then shoving it under a rug. Democrats have done the latter, not the former.

  11. Yep, she was manually banned. Check out this thread. Pretty much confirms whatever you think of Obama supporters. They are scared to death to discuss their candidate in any real detail. I have no idea how they think they will get through a primary in one piece. I wonder if they think banning GOP posters (whoops, there goes half of Obama’s online support) will prevent the mainstream media from chattering endlessly about Rezko until Obama eventually loses.


  12. Yep, she was manually banned. Look at this thread from Daily Kos. I always think of the left as being the reality based community in this nation. I think this banning pretty much proves that Obama supporters are in the same kind of Cloud Cookoo land that Bush supporters are (I’m going to have to read Aristophanes’ The Birds again. I think there are some parallels.)


    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  13. The amount of venom the Obama supporters spew, considering the falsehoods they post non-stop about Clinton, is staggering. The whole campaign is one huge, pathological nightmare. Can you imagine how much of a disaster an obama presidency would be with these people at his feet? They can’t handle legitimate criticism, what the heck are the gonna do when the GOP lets fly with their bullshit?

  14. hillfans, i just saw a good piece on cnn situation room on hillary campaigning in iowa. she spelled out differences on helping the poor with edwards and foriegn policy experience from obama. finnally a fair take on our girl.

  15. basement angel, the thing that has soured me on Obama and his supporters is the sheer hypocrisy and holier-than-thou stuff. I have never had a stomach for it. I can handle a lot of faults, but not that one.

  16. I don’t get John Edwards at all. I like the guy enormously but i’m beginning to think his gullibility cannot be overestimated. Obama has clobbered his chance at taking on Clinton. I don’t know why he’s so pissed at Clinton – she didn’t minor his mojo.

    Where is this site they are sharing?

  17. A bit of Women’s History trivia.

    On January 4th, I will be getting over a hangover due to the caucus-watching party I will be attending. Do you know what else happens on January 4th? I think Catholics may know. It will be the saint’s feast day for Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton. She was the first US citizen to be canonized as a Saint! She died on January 4th, 1821. So, on Jan. 4, remember that it’s “feast day” for our first Saint, a woman!

    This is what is written about her: After some trying and difficult years, Elizabeth was able to establish a community in Emmitsburg, Maryland dedicated to the care for the children of the poor.

    Sound like someone we know?

  18. guys, stay away from hardball, i know i had to take a peek. ed shultz turned into a full hillary hater. tweety and ed ganging up on mark green who is defending her.

  19. SusanHu, “While Illinois’, and the Nation’s, Veterans Suffer, Obama Campaigns [UPDATED] “.

    dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/ 152147/23/255/424869

  20. terrondt, I watched Stewie (formerly known as Tweety) as well. I counted at least four times him saying that Hillary was trying to smother BHO in his crib, she was trying to snuff out his campaign before he even had a chance to get some momentum going. The transcript tomorrow ought to make a good post, admin. I will make sure to get a Hot Topics up on Taylor Marsh after it comes out in the afternoon, as well.

    I used to like Ed Schultz on Air America but he has turned into a nasty vicious SOB. I had seen him on Spitball (and there really was a line of spittle coming out of the left corner of Stewie’s mouth when he was talking today) and he angered me then. But tonight he was totally out of a box.

    Mark Green tried to interject some reason but Ed was not going to let him have it. Mark tried to separate Ed’s tirade from the reality that 90% of political spin is legitimate, some not so much. But Ed just ran on at the mouth pushing everything into one ugly scenario.

    It is obvious from this 10 minutes of Hillary bashing that they are VERY VERY VERY scared that she will win the Iowa caucus and early primaries, let alone win the Dem nom.

    The RW and faux progressive Ed Schultz are petrified that the Clinton “machine” is going to STOP their Saint from “gaining momentum”.

    Hey, dumb asses, it’s called politics and your Obambi’s a loser—L-O-S-E-R.

  21. Now, I see. For some reason it wouldn’t reload.

    Reading through the comments, I now know why I don’t go there. I prefer Atrios world and comments b/c they seem more mature and reality-based. If the posters from DKos commented there as they do at DKos, they would just be ignored or made fun of for the arrogant behavior. It doesn’t seem that Obama Kossacks are really anti violence or anti war with their violent (yes, violent) behavior and hatred.

  22. Are you all watching what Chris Matthews and his roundtable are doing to Hillary and her campaign??? It’s like poor Obama; they are stabbing him in his crib, kicking him in the chins, etc. Hillary’s campaign is not supposed to talk about Obama’s health care? Not supposed to talk about his voting present in the state senate? And it’s also true about his drug use and tell me if I’m wrong, but his middle name is HUSSEIN!!!

    If I had any doubt that the media HATES Hillary, I don’t any longer!! They are treating Obama with kid gloves and making the Clintons out to be monsters!!!

    Truthfully, I don’t care HOW Hillary wins, I just want her to be our next president!!!!

  23. From Obama’s fundraising letter calling the same unions he sought for support, “huge, unregulated contributions from special interests.”

    It’s more important than ever to take action.Right now groups supporting Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are flooding Iowa and the other early states with millions of dollars in paid ads, phone calls, and mailings.

    Some of it is negative and even deceptive, and a lot of it is paid for by huge, unregulated contributions from special interests.

    Taking on these groups isn’t just a matter of setting the record straight about me or my positions.”

    Imagine if it was OB with the union support and Hillary sent out a similar email, what would the BIG STORY be?


  24. Great long comment over on my DD by lambros. I hope it’s okay to post it here:

    “I echo the sentiments of the ever prescient Georgep, but I would go much further in noting the obvious: despite all the efforts from the Clinton-hating MSM and their acolytes in the blogosphere, the dynamics of the Democratic Primary Race have changed little if any all year long.

    Senator Clinton inaugurated the year with substantial leads nationally in virtually every poll, and she ends the year with substantial leads nationally in virtually every poll.

    Senator Clinton has been most formidable in New Hampshire all year–and she ends the year yet most formidable there.

    She has been in a give-and-take lead with Senator Obama in South Carolina all year–despite wild swings up and down–the year ends there much the same.

    And Iowa, wherein Senator Edwards has lived and canvassed for the years since his Vice-presidential campaign, inaugurated the year in Iowa well ahead. Senator Clinton, then canvassing with her husband–the most popular politician in the world–more than closed the gap. Then Senator Obama, the anointed honey of the MSM and with Oprah Winfrey’s clout and megallion coffers, caught wind and temporarily came out ahead. But the year ends in a wash–and give or take a percentage point or two, will likely end up as such, regardless of media fanfare.

    To the Obama and Edwards campaigns, Iowa is everything. It simply begins a process.

    But therein is the end of precedent–this year is unprecedented. One candidate is the former First Lady of the United States, abetted by Bill Clinton, with enormous institutional advantages, in all of her efforts.

    And that holds true regardless of media spin; regardless of MSM and blogosphere anti-Clinton sentiment.

    And whereas the MSM and blogosphere and early primary state voters include a heavy dose of anti-Clinton independents and other “leaners,” the bedrock core of the Democratic Party, notwithstanding Karl Rove/Roger Ailes/Russert/Williams/Matthews and the remaining hate-the-Clintons talking heads, are not going to abandon the Clintons.

    And the Clintons are a tandem. They ran as a tandem in 1992. They withstood the Right-wing onslaught as a tandem throughout Bill’s presidential terms. And it is a tandem in which they are running today.

    Let the rival campaigns cry foul. Let the blogosphere and MSM have their conniptions.

    The hard-core Democrats–not those leaners and indies–want the Clintons back, and badly. And every bit as much as the Obama/Edwards/MSM/blogosphere forces want them to go away.

    Which is why, contrary to the MSM/blogopshere spin, the national numbers and NOT the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina numbers are EVERYTHING.

    By February 5, everything before it will have been eclipsed.

    Bedrock Democrats–not those indies and leaners–will be voting in droves.

    And as the national numbers have shown consistently all year, those bedrock Democrats want the Clintons.

    Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina can either join their fellow Democrats in returning the Clintons to power, or be relegated to irrelevance perpertually.

    No, the MSM and blogosphere couldn’t drive the Clintons from power in the 1990s.

    And today, when the MSM and blogosphere are viewed far more skeptically, considering the fact that they both abetted incompetent GWB’s rise to power in 2000-their “interpretation” matters not a Fig Newton to the greater masses.

    In these closing weeks, those anti-Clinton forces have desperately tried to change the dynamic. They are presently consumed with Iowa, in the hopes that fanfare from that state can change fundamentals in later states.

    Not so. Let them live out the last of their illusions. The dynamics haven’t changed.

    Senator Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. And she will become the first woman President of the United States.”

    http://www.mydd. com/story/2007/12/20/10244/275

  25. BTW, I checked the details about that Fox poll. McCain is only 1 point behind Rudy nationally. He could very well get the nomination, if he wins NH.

  26. I just got back from the Hillary event in Tipton and it went so well. Hillary spoke eloquently. We had a former admiral and a president from an org that helps veterans families talk about Hillary and her support of the military, and then Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski. HRC was awesome, took questions, one of which caused her to tear up. A lady was crying and asked Hillary about illegal immigration because her daughter was hit and killed at 18 years old by an illegal alien with no DL. Hillary cried a little, though it was really just welling up a bit. It was sad, being an overemotional gay guy, I cried too 🙂 But the event went so smoothly and we had a wonderful time. A bus full of elderly women came from a retirement center in Tipton and they were so sweet and I helped get them out of the bus and walk them up to get signed in. The military and Iraq was the main focus of this speech and since Tipton has recently lost 3 soldiers in the war, this was a spot-on message.

  27. if Mccain wins NH, watch Obama bubble to burst pretty quickly. hehe, if Obama doesnt drop out before super tuesday, and Mccain is front runner, Hillary wins because anti-hillary vote will be split between two. there is NOT A SINGLE POLL where Obama beats Mccain handily. to be fair Edwards will beat Mccain much better than Hillary. but then the problem with Edwards is, he has lost his way in primaries. if current polls are any indication, it is almost certain that he wont get nomination, because his strategy of attacking Hillary instead of Obama.
    UNLESS one scenario where he takes Obama as his VP or Obama drops out and they both run on super tuesday as a coalition. How unlikely is that, given the fact that Edwards has no strategy after Iowa, even if he gets bounce from iowa, NH voters will put a break.

  28. Hullo hawk! 🙂 I would likely have teared up as well. How sweet of you to help the little old ladies! I love your updates, and am happy to hear Hillary iscampaigning hard there in Tipton.

    How did your finals go? Did you say already and I missed it?

  29. The streamlined “outline” was dumbed-down effectively, admin. I like it. It’s absurd that Obama hasn’t been vetted at all, and we’re just weeks away from the primary season.

  30. gladiatorstail, I don’t know that McCain would less likely to beat Edwards than Hillary. Like Obama, Edwards hasn’t exactly been vetted either. His negatives would rise substantially once the Repubs went after him.

    Also, I don’t buy the anti-Hillary vote idea. Her favorable rating is at least 80 percent among Dems; there’s not enough anti-Hillary sentiment to win a nomination with. The vast majority of Obama and Edwards supporters like Hillary, and vice versa. The blogs are not representative at all in that regard.

  31. why are obama and edwards supporters so effective?
    because they act while we discuss it. here is one kossack post in afscme diary!

    I just called WHO-TV, KCCI-TV, and Yepsen w/ DMR (0 / 0)

    all in Des Moines. WHO-TV is already doing a report on this, KCCI sounded interested, and I left a message with fuckin’ Yepsen.

    I left out the Enquirer crap.

  32. There is no way Obama or Edwards would team up. This is especially true of either seeking to be other’s VP. It would just be stupid. Together, they dramatically call into question the other’s inexperience.

  33. I don’t think any of the Dem candidates would select another as VP.

    James Carville suggested that Hillary should select Gov. Sebelius as her running mate. That is brilliant actually. First, it looks like she is willing to take a risk by selecting a female running mate.

    It wouldn’t be a risk though. She is the only candidate that benefits from drawing attention to her unique status in running. Mark Penn is right about attracting women from the Repugs.

  34. i am not sure about 80% thing paula. i think she loses support among 30-45 generation.

    moreover, it will be tough for her to get obammaa supporters and disgruntled african american’s once she beats him. the storyline from press would be, he lost becaushe she charged him with drug selling charge. but dass wat i think. i might be wrong.

  35. Kudos for the Author: When it comes to anti-Hillary reporting, the big media and the big blogs are like a piano player in a whorehouse. This is a spot-on remark and I hope the voters will punish them heavily in January.

  36. Paula: Like Obama, Edwards hasn’t exactly been vetted either.

    Well, certainly by Jesse Helms in ’98 and Kerry’s team in ’04. I think he falls short in other depts, but this isn’t one I worry about too much.

  37. I just posted this at
    It’s still a short thread so very worth posting to.

    In 1996 and 2004 Obama did not have strong opponents looking for ammunition.

    In 1996 he was the only name on the ballot! — he had wiped everyone else off the ballot by challenging their petitions (inluding Alice Palmer, who had helped him get in the race). In 2004 his opponents (primary and Nov) had “imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.”*
    Hillary hasn’t used this or other ammuintion given free (eg Obama’s admitted cocaine use), much less dug for more. But the GOP won’t be so gentle.

    Any surprises in Hillary’s past would have to be since Ken Starr’s $50 million investigation. But Obama’s whole past has never been seriosuly investigated. Lord knows what the GOP can find or invent.

    Even the facts from the Chicago Tribune article about Obama’s 1996 ‘election’ would be enough for a GOP opponent to charge Obama with dirty politics.

    *cite: CT article
    “Showing his bare knuckles
    In first campaign, Obama revealed hard-edged, uncompromising side in eliminating party rivals”
    By David Jackson and Ray Long | Tribune staff reporters
    April 4, 2007

  38. This is what were fighting guys. From Washington Post:


    Will Enough Men Stand By This Woman?

    Hillary Clinton’s Fight for the White House Reflects the Battle of the Sexes

    By Lois Romano
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, December 20, 2007; C01

    Like many New Hampshire voters, Matthew McLaughlin is rather well schooled in presidential politics. He exhaustively reads newspapers, takes in the television ads flooding his state these days and watches the debates. He is a former Navy pilot with a particular interest in the next commander in chief, and he certainly views himself as progressive enough to accept a woman in the job.

    And this particular woman, in contention for the Democratic nomination? McLaughlin, 49, doesn’t hesitate for a second, as he stands in the grocery store on a recent snowy afternoon in Bedford, holding the basket while his wife loads up on cold cuts.

    “The thing I don’t like about Hillary Clinton is that you cannot get a straight answer from her,” says the registered Democrat. “She talks on both sides of an issue. . . . I was struck when Barack Obama laid out his position on Social Security reform and she refused to give her opinion. My view is: ‘Like me or not. This is who I am, this is where I stand.’ ”

    McLaughlin’s choice for the Democratic nomination: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. “Here’s the thing, you delete one thing on his r¿sum¿ and he still has a ton of other credits to his name,” McLaughlin says. “You take away her Senate years and what does she have? She was first lady.”

    As the world of politics fixates on the women’s vote in this cycle, there looms a question: What about the guys?

    They’re in the gender gap.

    In Iowa, Clinton’s support among male Democratic caucusgoers lags behind Barack Obama, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

    In New Hampshire, she’s doing better among male Democrats, but she faces questions about her candor. Half of men say she’s not willing to say what she really thinks. Large majorities say that Obama and John Edwards are.

    Nationally, her gender gap among Democrats is smaller, the poll shows, but some analysts suggest that these numbers are not strong enough for a general election, because a majority of male independents view her unfavorably.

    Her lead in the national polls has been attributed primarily to female supporters, and her campaign has worked doggedly to cultivate them. She also has an edge with male primary voters nationally within her own party. But introduce independents, those precious swing voters she will need to win a general election, and the picture is not as kind. Let’s just say that if this were high school, she wouldn’t make prom court.

    Women’s rights advocates attribute male skepticism about Clinton to long-ingrained sexism — and a sense that men, no matter what they say, just aren’t ready for a female president. And political conservatives have exploited those often-unspoken fears of female power to caricature Clinton for years. But in several interviews with Democratic men across the country, the stated reasons for their aversion to Clinton seem more complicated, and in many cases, far more visceral than substantive.

    They just don’t like her, some say. They don’t know what she stands for. They believe her word is no good, that she doesn’t believe that she can be held accountable. They see her as intellectual snob who lets you know she’s smarter. They say she sounds like everybody’s ex-wife. They can’t tell if she’s the loyal, traditional wife who stayed with her husband for love after his humiliating extramarital affair — or a canny politician who stayed because it was politically expedient. Even: Is she a Yankees or a Cubs fan?

    For the Clinton campaign, these last few weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are a push to sweep away such personal reservations for voters. The New York senator continues to be ranked highest nationally among Democrats in polls on key traits, such as most presidential, knowledgeable about the world, electable and experienced. Still, it is Democratic men rather than women who in interviews have the long memories for the long-ago rumors and White House scandals that portray Clinton as an angry woman — the travel office fiasco when she pushed to have the longtime staff fired, or the never-proved rumor that she once threw a lamp — or an ashtray, pick your weapon of choice — at her husband.

    “She can’t shed her past,” says Doug Wheeler, a retired University of New Hampshire history professor who recently decided his candidate was Sen. Barack Obama. “Obama doesn’t have that problem. There’s a charisma about Obama and I like his answers to questions. John Kennedy had that charisma, and you could argue that he didn’t have that much experience when he was elected.”

    Listen to McLaughlin, the airline pilot, and his wife, Debbie, 50, a school librarian, talk about Clinton in separate interviews.

    Debbie: “[Matt] says the fact that she is a woman doesn’t matter, but down deep I think it does. He believes women should be treated equal but . . . men don’t want to be beat by a woman. They don’t want to be beaten by the other sex.”

    Matt: “I wouldn’t not vote for her just because she’s a woman. That wouldn’t throw me over the edge by any stretch. We had a female governor of New Hampshire [Jeanne Shaheen] and I supported her.”

    Debbie: “What I like is that Hillary is connected — she can hit the ground running right away. She could start making the changes she needs to make almost immediately.”

    Matt: “What qualifies her to be president? She spent eight years as first lady. She didn’t have a Cabinet. She wasn’t elected to any position of power.”

    Debbie: “She is an extremely intelligent person. . . . She was an adviser to Bill.”

    Matt: “If she came to Washington, she certainly would not be a uniter. She brings divisions. She doesn’t come with a clean slate.”

    Ed Beattie, a history teacher and girls’ varsity basketball coach at Winnacunnet High School in New Hampshire, agonized for months about who would get his support. He worked hard for John Kerry in 2004. A well-known union activist in the state for the National Education Association, and a tireless Democrat, Beattie was heavily courted. In August, he declared for John Edwards, which in effect meant rejecting Clinton in a state where she had secured the lion’s share of institutional Democratic support.

    “If she wasn’t married to Bill Clinton, where would she be in this election cycle?” Beattie says in an interview. “Name me one state she could carry that John Kerry didn’t carry in 2004.”

    Beattie adds that this was a particularly important election for changing the partisan tone in Washington. “Look at where the country is now — the American people don’t need anyone more polarizing,” he says.

    Ed Brick, a California contractor, actually started out supporting Clinton and then turned on her. “I don’t know what it was, but the more I read and the more I listened to her, the less I liked her,” he says. “I never get the sense she’s giving a straight answer, and that doesn’t give me much faith in her. I don’t care about color or gender — I just want someone straightforward with the people.”

    “Women see her not just as a role model, but as a savior,” says Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster not affiliated with any presidential candidate. “Men know she is smarter, and there is a sense of intimidation. But it goes beyond that. She never admits a mistake, and that’s a big mistake.”

    In fact, she has made strong gains among white men, who have been fleeing the Democratic Party for decades. In 2000, exit polls showed George W. Bush leading Al Gore among white men by 24 percentage points. Four years later, with Kerry at the head of the ticket, the margin for Bush was 25 points. In addition, there are unique challenges for most women running for office.

    “In general, men have the most problem electing women to executive jobs — such as governor,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster and strategist working with Sen. Joe Biden in the presidential race. “They wonder, ‘Can she be effective? Will other men — in Congress, world leaders — be willing to listen to her?’ ”

    But Lake and others also note that Clinton does have unique negatives. “In Senator Clinton’s case, men have stored a lot of doubts about her,” Lake says.

    Bruce Nielsen, who picks up recycling for the city of Buffalo, is one of those men.

    “No way — not even close,” he says during a phone interview after participating in a Post poll. “Where do I start? I guess her views on the war, and the fact that I’m afraid if we pull out of Iraq too fast, she’ll bring the war over here.” Clinton now favors a phased troop redeployment starting immediately.

    And then: “I just don’t like her personality. She wears the pants in that family. She’s pushy. The way Bill got caught [philandering] — I think she should have left him. I pretty much lost respect for the woman.

    “This has nothing to do with gender. I just don’t like the woman.”

    So whom is he leaning toward?

    He struggles with a name, and then turns from the phone to ask his wife: “What’s the colored fella’s name? Obama. Yeah, Obama, I like him.

    “He’s a good family man, strong family values. He respects people and he seems honest. Experience — probably not as much as the others, but he’s not afraid to get his hands dirty.”

    Retired physician Warren Emley is among the 40 percent of registered Independents in New Hampshire, and he came to a Rotary Club to give a listen to Mitt Romney.

    He’s still shopping across the field, but there’s one candidate he’s already rejected: Hillary Clinton.

    “We’d have a dual presidency, and I don’t like that,” Emley says. “Bill had a good run, but now it’s time for change.” There’s no question in his mind, he says, that “they have some secret agenda.”

    And then he lowers the ax: “I will never understand why she stayed with him, why she didn’t walk away. This ‘stand by your man’ stuff. It doesn’t fly with me.”

  39. To me this is just another typical Hillary slam piece by the MSM. It’s nothing more than a rehash of all the reasons Hillary haters give for not supporting her. The reporter just went out and found people reflecting those views so he would have names to try to give his story legitimacy. Clearly enough men are standing by Hillary to get her to the level where she is at. Also, now that people are getting to know her in Iowa her support among males is going up.

    There is no doubt that misogyny will be part of this campaign and a barrier for many voters. However, it would have been there in the state of New York as well when she ran as senator and she won despite it.

  40. I think this stuff has to be put out there. It’s like holding a mirror to their faces, you know? Besides I think most of the men in the story across as ignorant….

  41. Yeah, I agree, but it does show the kind of perceptions Hillary is dealing with, most of which make zero sense to me.

    gladiatorstail, The drug thing hurt Hillary more than Obama because all the press talked about was how it was a “dirty trick.” Sure Matthews, etc. will claim that, but we’ll have to see how that all plays out if she wins.

    HillaryLandRocks, About Edwards being vetted: I was referring to how he hasn’t been subject to Repub attacks in a national campaign. That didn’t happen when he was Kerry’s VP. All the fire was directed at Kerry.

  42. Some good points in this article. btw, 8 % undecided Iowa caucusgoers; The Secret Weapon in ready…..

    Quote: >>


    Iowa Poll Spotlights Importance Of Turnout

    Obama and Clinton Lead the Democrats

    By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, December 19, 2007; A01

    Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York remain deadlocked in Iowa, with former senator John Edwards of North Carolina trailing, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that underscores the importance of the massive efforts the Democratic candidates have set in motion to turn out supporters on Jan. 3.

    In a race that could hinge on a campaign’s ability to motivate voters to brave wintry conditions and spend hours attending caucuses, each of the leading contenders appears to enjoy distinct advantages. More of Obama’s backers said they are certain to participate than did those who have gotten behind Clinton. But Clinton’s supporters are the most committed and enthusiastic, and Edwards counts among his supporters experienced caucus attendees who are more likely to turn out again.

    Enthusiasm for a candidate and familiarity with the process are critical components in the caucuses, in which voting takes place in public after speeches on behalf of each of the candidates, and complex rules dictate the allocation of delegates.

    The three front-runners are pouring resources into the state, viewing the caucuses as potentially decisive in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

    Obama has gained ground on Clinton on the question of which Democrat is seen as most electable in November 2008, which had been one of her early calling cards in wooing voters. Clinton retains a significant advantage as the candidate with the best experience to be president.

    Overall, 33 percent of likely caucusgoers support Obama, 29 percent Clinton and 20 percent Edwards. A month ago, four percentage points also separated Obama and Clinton at the top (30 percent to 26 percent).

    The other Democrats campaigning actively in Iowa remain far behind. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson registered 8 percent in the new poll, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware 4 percent and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut 1 percent.

    Iowa’s caucuses put a premium on organization, and all the campaigns are engaged in unprecedented efforts to identify supporters and get them to one of the 1,781 precinct caucuses.

    Here the poll offers good news for each of the leading candidates. More than seven in 10 of Obama’s supporters said they are certain to participate in the caucuses, compared with 59 percent of Clinton’s backers.

    Clinton’s supporters, however, are the most firmly behind her. Seventy percent said they will definitely caucus for her in two weeks, while Edwards’s and Obama’s supporters were more apt to say there is a good chance they might change their minds. Moreover, 59 percent of Clinton’s backers said they are very enthusiastic about supporting her, compared with 49 percent of Obama’s supporters.

    Solid support for both Clinton and Edwards rose over the past month, while Obama’s remained stable. The level of excitement among Clinton’s and Edwards’s supporters also increased in that time, but did not change among Obama’s.

    Adding to the challenge for Clinton and Obama is that they are relying more heavily than Edwards on potential first-time caucus participants. More than half the supporters of Clinton and Obama have never caucused, while two-thirds of Edwards’s backers have done so. Edwards is hoping to draw on the network he built in Iowa four years ago when he finished second to Sen. John F. Kerry, the eventual Democratic nominee.

    Considering other turnout factors brings no additional clarity. Age and education are two key predictors of caucus participation, with older and more highly educated people disproportionately showing up to vote. While Clinton outpaces Obama among older voters, particularly those aged 65 and up, Obama outperforms her nearly 3 to 1 among those with an education of a college degree or more.

    Obama nearly doubles up his competitors among those under age 40 and has made a sizable effort to recruit college students and even some high school students. But they have been far less reliable caucus attendees in the past.

    Men favor Obama over Clinton and Edwards in the new poll by double-digit margins, while women divide about evenly between Clinton (36 percent) and Obama (32 percent). In the latest Post-ABC national poll, Clinton had a 39-point advantage among women, and she had a 12-point edge with women in the recent Post-ABC New Hampshire survey.

    The most important fault line in the electorate continues to be between those who prize fresh ideas and a change in direction, versus those who say strength and experience are more important factors.

    By a margin of 56 percent to 33 percent, caucusgoers give a higher priority to new ideas and a new direction. In that group, Obama has a clear advantage — with 50 percent supporting him to 23 percent for Edwards and 15 percent for Clinton.

    By contrast, Clinton has a wide lead among those more concerned about experience. Forty-nine percent of these voters favor her candidacy, to 15 percent for Edwards, 13 percent for Richardson and 8 percent for Obama. Clinton’s support in this group jumped 11 points over the past month.

    On the question of who is most electable in 2008’s general election, the gap between Clinton and Obama largely disappeared over the past month. In November, Clinton had a 14-point advantage on electability; the two top candidates now run about even.

    Clinton does have a whopping lead on experience; 45 percent cited her as the one with the best r¿sum¿. Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Obama are well back. On a separate question, 61 percent of those surveyed said Obama has the experience to serve effectively as president. But potentially worrisome for him is that voters 55 and older are evenly split, with 48 percent saying he has the requisite experience and 47 percent saying he does not.

    Clinton also leads on the question of which candidate is the strongest leader, although not by the overwhelming margin she enjoys on the measure in national polling.

    Obama’s biggest advantage over the other candidates came on the question of who is the most honest. But Clinton has made gains on trustworthiness: Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said she is willing enough to speak her mind on the issues, up nine points from a month ago. Obama has a narrow lead as the candidate who “best understands the problems of people like you.”

    The poll showed a slight shift in the priorities of Iowa voters. Health care topped Iraq as the most important issue, although the two remain voters’ central concerns in the election.

    Clinton is seen as best able to deal with health care by almost 2 to 1 over Obama and Edwards. She enjoys a smaller advantage on who can best deal with the economy. On Iraq, she and Obama were essentially even; on this issue, Obama has improved 11 percentage points from the summer.

    Because of the rules for Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, voters’ second choices can affect the results in many precincts. When the votes for other candidates were reallocated on the basis of second choices, Obama led with 37 percent to Clinton’s 31 percent and Edwards’s 26 percent. But Iowa Democratic Party officials cautioned against assuming there would be a consistent pattern in how second choices would translate to individual precinct results.

    The poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 13 to 17, among a random sample of 652 Iowa adults likely to participate in the Democratic caucuses. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

    Polling began after the Democratic candidates squared off in their final debate of the year and ended the day after Clinton received the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest newspaper. The endorsement did not have an immediate impact: Her support before and after the endorsement were similar in this poll.

    Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

  43. Putting Obama’s cocaine problem in the media didn’t hurt Clinton anywhere near as much as it hurt Obama.

    Edwards doesn’t even have to be vetted. He’s a cartoon character for the Republican talking points:

    “Democrats are for big government, higher taxes, and waving the white flag in the global war on terror.”

  44. Thank you, I just watched it. 🙂

    hwc, I still suspect the vast majority of the people in this country don’t even known Obama used cocaine in his youth. The media acted as if it were a smear.

  45. You are spot-on AmericanGal. It croaks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck! It is a duck. It is the usual anti-Hillary crap made by MSM and their aide-de-camps.

  46. Today, there was an article in the Washington Post entitled “Will Enough Men Stand By Her?” by a staff writer named Romano. The article claims that although polling data consistently shows that Hillary is the most presidential, experienced, knowledgeable, and (lest we forget) electable candidate in the race, the men who were interviewed expressed some reluctance to vote for her because they found her to be angry and/or evasive. How do we answer them?

    Well, I can tell you what I say. When someone claims that she is angry, I tell that is because she cares about the country and is seriously concerned about our future. I remind them of what has occurred in the past eight years, and ask them whether they are happy with it themselves. I tell them that the only people who are not angry at this point are the wealthy and/or those who are not paying attention. I tell them to not fall for the old right wing caricature of who she is—look at her actual record. What they perceive as anger is really passion which is the indispensible prerequisite to the effective problem-solving which the country desperately needs.

    When someone claims that she is fails to provide straight answers to simple questions, I tell them that is because the problems themselves are complex, any answer would be hypothetical and it could create unintended consequences. Then, I list some straight answers that produced bad consequences, e.g. read my lips; no new taxes (Bush 41), I will commit to with enemies of the United States in the first year of my presidency without preconditions (Obama), I will attack al Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharaff will not act causing riots (Obama), I will ban all toys from China- BTW Merry Christmas (Obama). Effective leaders do not make decisions until the issue is ripe and they have the pertinent facts in front of them–notwithstanding what Tim Russert would have you believe.

    And, when someone gives me the opening to make the case for Hillary, I ask them to tell me the top three problems facing the country, explain Hillary’s policy solution for each of them, stress the importance of political courage (fight vs. flight), cite examples where she has delivered , cite examples where Obama has taken the dive, and conclude with the following question: given the problems that we face today both here and in the world what exactly do we want in the next president—an experienced leader or a rock star? Finally, I assure them that I am an independent voter, and I am committed to Hillary Clinton because I am certain that she has the best combination of mind and heart to be our next president

  47. We pro-Clinton folk we are hurt, when she is being harshly attacked from all directions. She is facing an unparalled resistance than all other candidates combined. Even if most of their allegations are driven by low motive reasons, we must be happy and be delighted for these vicious attacks on her, because Clinton will emerge from this swamp, victorious!
    They will not say it was an easy victory, because their own archieves of poll numbers and hundreds of perverted comments will stop their stinking mouths from saying this.
    Best Gold is the one that is refined in furnace-fire several times and Hillary is about to come out from this furnace as pure Gold for the american people.

  48. anderson cooper-tonight on 360-hillary sets up 2 attack sites! we will fat check her! mitt romney makes up story-is he like bil clinton?-catch 360!–Im serious-that is what thsi guy said. mr vanderbilt needs to get a grip.

  49. why is anderson cooper behaving like a real reporter? isnt he supposed to be having a $20M witchhunt going around behind his back saying he is gay? I mean this guy has to be cautious now!

  50. Paula- thanks. My inspiration comes from watching Hillary over the years, and from the insights of admin and contibutors like you on this unique and valuable site. Like the rest of us, I sweat bullets for what the Big Media jackals, the Republicans and the Obambi/Edwards tag team have put her through these past six weeks.

    However, I also believe that she is one of those people who thrives on this kind of challenge. One of the many biographies written about her suggested as much. Still, I have to believe there are times where even Hillary may wish things were not quite so challenging. It cannot be easy to manage the responsiblities of Senator from New York, and fight a three front war on the campaign trail against the factions above for the benefit of the American People.

  51. “Still, I have to believe there are times where even Hillary may wish things were not quite so challenging.”

    I’m sure, lol. 🙂

  52. Someone was claiming on CNN that by bringing up the issue of the cocaine use during the campaign was really using the race cards. Gergan defended the Clinton campaign saying he did not believe there were any racial motives with this issue nor were the Clintons racist.

    The coverage tonight was very overblown. They took the report of a couple websites domain names being purchased by the Clinton campaign and framed them as an “attack” on Obama. That led into a discussion of how the cocaine incident and Kerry incidents were attacks.

    One of the reporters during the segment said his phone was ringing off the hook during the broadcast by people telling him that it is suspected that the Hillary Attacks website is from the Obama camp

  53. forgot to add–Gergan brought up that drug use was brought up during the Bush campaign and he is white.

    This was a really unfair segment tonight–the Obama camp must have been busy putting pressure on CNN on the domain names to make a story.

  54. Paula, they were trying to keep beating the dead Bill Sheehan horse (even though that is over and done) – saying cocaine is a race card. Yada yada yada. Last week’s news, they can’t let it go.

  55. ABC broke the domain name story today and called it an “attack,” even though the sites contain zero content. Give me a break.

    “One of the reporters during the segment said his phone was ringing off the hook during the broadcast by people telling him that it is suspected that the Hillary Attacks website is from the Obama camp.” Now THIS in interesting.

  56. It’s ridiculous to make an issue of the domain names–did they question Edwards campaign setting up the Hillary Plant website?

  57. meiyingsu, There’s no logic when it comes to media coverage of Hillary. It’s all about protecting Obama from the scrutiny he – and any other front-line candidate – deserves.

  58. Paula, that was a very interesting moment–it was significant enough for the reporter to talk about it live on air.

  59. This recent proliferation of hit pieces against Hillary proves that Big Media: i) practices hac journalism, ii) wants to hijack this election and iii) supports a candidate who is all hat no cattle. It is like deja vue Bush all over again. The American People should be wise to their game by now, one would think. But it never hurts to remind them.

  60. kingsgrove,

    i could swear i wrote about 5 times for admin to get your post off this site a week or so back, when you posted an article about hillary and prostitution, and some such crap…

    a number of people said it was trash…

    am i wrong?
    you know if i am, i apologize…
    if i am not, than i wonder why you keep putting this kind of post on here? its very negative, and not the kind of b.s. that moves hillary forward…

    maybe i am just slow and everyone knows who you are,
    but some of your postings make me go HMMMMM !

  61. women are not permited to attack men even when men attack them. is that the message from msm? barack invites conservative dick lugar to his cabinet-big war supporter, very antichoice. bill mentioned bush 41 and the msm shreiked. obama also thinks hagel is great. yes hagel is now against the war, but is very conservative-loved alito and is wildly antichoice. but hillary is a corpate joe lieberman right? sad. im really snarky over this crap. and i feel powerless on this. the male run media is having their jollies. she cannot set up a website on obama’s votes without being attacked.

  62. Bill made a point. it is a dangerous thing when media comes in between voters and politicians. they want to stop Hillary’s comeback. they want to stop her from gaining any momentum. btw is Hillary’s 5 day tour done? any updates from Hawk?

  63. gladiatorstail,

    Yeah, HRC’s Iowa 99 county blitz tour ended today, and now she will be doing a similar tour in New Hampshire before a much deserved Christmas break.

  64. Paula, they were trying to keep beating the dead Bill Sheehan horse (even though that is over and done) – saying cocaine is a race card. Yada yada yada. Last week’s news, they can’t let it go.

    Good. The longer they keep talking about Obama’s coke problem, the better.

  65. Texan4hillary, you are right on the money. Don’t forget, Obama also wants Arnold Swartzenneger…

    NBC had the first negative piece I’ve seen this entire campaign on Obama concerning his “present” votes in the Illinois senate. Two things: 1. it was not the first story on the broadcast nor was it “hyped” as the main piece of the broadcast 2. they made an effort for “balance” by having supportive/explaining comments by people about Obama’s behavior as well as comments by those questioning it. Neither of these two things would have happened if it had been a story on Hillary.

  66. AmericanGal,

    At least they covered the story – even if they did soften it up. It would be too much to ask for ‘fair’ journalism from some of the MSM.

  67. the last Iowa poll that showed BHO ahead was a hack poll. it was poll of skewed internals. turnout charts were manipulated by age distribution that was skewed to give advantage to BO. Obama will be done in Iowa. 25-30% of his support comes from students. if I were Obama I would be worrying about how to get turnout in 18-30 age group students and other supporters. He has the ground game laid, but can it deliver? time shall tell. meanwhile, I want to see polls showing Hillary cruising through. I hope at these precarious times, her campaign doesnt make any mistakes hopefully.

    For Hillary, its all about turnout. I am yet to see emily group’s impact. Is there any real data floating out there that I am missing? BHO’s internal data might be showing troubles. thats why his surrogates are increasingly going to the media and crying foul.

  68. Do the big medias want Democrat to lose in GE? While they keep protect Obama who shoudn’t enter the race in the first place.

  69. i wish ann richards was around-she would be hillary’s great advocate-she loved her . obama would piss his pants with ann going after him. may her spirit protect hillary

  70. texan4hillary, its funny now that you mentioned it. I agree, she would have been great advocate for Hillary. she was smart, intelligent and knew how to play the game. these puny reporters would have been soo small infront of her! 🙂

  71. You know, I was just thinking that the middle name business just highlights how Obama is such an inexperienced candidate. Someone with experience would have addressed the middle name issue and religious affilliation right away after announcing so it wouldn’t become an issue later on. Obama could have come up with some kind of clever joke about his middle name and got it right out in the open to make voters less afraid of it. He could have taken the time and made a concentrated effort to inform people about his religious affiliation right from the start to lessen any misunderstandings. He did neither.

  72. gladiatorstail: I agree with what Bill is saying. Before our very eyes, our country is moving away from democracy and toward obligarchy.

    During the past seven years, the economic wealth of this country has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

    If Big Media succeeds in its effort to hijack this election, then the political clout of the many will be lost to the few as well.

  73. well this USA today/gallup “hack” poll in which they skewed indies to make a neck to neck race in NH. this will be fodder throughout tomorrow for media. this is good. it plays up the expectation game for Obama. Hillary will seal the deal in Iowa and NH. Meanwhile, Mccain has to gain more strength 🙂

  74. Don’t get overconfident about polls. I am confused we’ve had two neck and neck and two with wide double digit leads. Weird.

  75. haaa. i like this one from newsweek..

    GRUNDY CENTER, Iowa–Oh, snap. She went there.

    With polls showing Hillary Clinton locked in a tie–or losing–to Barack Obama here in the dwindling days before the caucuses, her campaign has cycled through a series of criticisms of the junior senator from Illinois. Experience. Electability. Even courage. But those are BBs. What Clinton’s needs is a silver bullet–something every Democratic caucusgoer can agree is completely unconscionable.

    What she needs is the name “George W. Bush.”

    Make that “needed.” In an interview with ABC’s Cynthia McFadden yesterday, Clinton dismissed questions about the likability gap between her and Obama by stressing her record–and reminding viewers that they once liked Dubya, too. “We’ve gone through trying to decide, who would you rather have a beer with, and look at the results,” she said. Warming to the theme, Clinton dropped another Bush bomb on Obama today on the trail, this time echoing the day’s theme–Iraq and foreign affairs–and questioning Obama’s capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief. “It’s tempting any time things seem quieter on the international front to think that we don’t need a president who’s up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters,” she said. “Well, that’s the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place.”

    I’m not exactly sure voters want to have a beer with Obama. (Or if he wants to have a beer with them–seems like a wine guy to me.) And saying he’s not “up to speed on foreign affairs” seems a little unfair. (Unlike, say, Huckabee, he was aware of the Iran NIE.) But Clinton’s basic equation–personal appeal + inexperience = Bush–may add up for some voters.

    The campaign, which flagged both Bush quotes for the traveling press corps, is certainly hoping it will.

    Now if only Obama could go clear some brush…

  76. I’m not exactly sure voters want to have a beer with Obama. (Or if he wants to have a beer with them–seems like a wine guy to me.)

    Maybe do a little blow with him.

  77. “It’s tempting any time things seem quieter on the international front to think that we don’t need a president who’s up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters,” she said. “Well, that’s the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place.”

    Gee, I wonder why people assume she was talking about Obama? I guess it’s the old “if the shoe fits” story, huh?

  78. Polls are looking good and Bill C and Magic J are two of the most charming men on the planet. One tiny thorn on the rose: IA and NV. OK, that’s technically two thorns — same problem. The idiocy of the caucus — made sillier by the Dem. rules. After hosting a ‘caucus101’ meeting last week attended by mainly seniors, and reading about some voter reactions in IA, I now know why nobody goes to caucuses. They do not get it. When you make calls, you hear, “No, I won’t caucus, but I will vote for Hillary.” You then try to explain why in God’s name we are not just voting and you hear, “You mean I can’t vote in the primary?”

    I have been going on the assumption that it’s new for NV but that IAns are old hands. Evidently not — as in “I don’t caucus because I don’t want to look stupid.”

    The best thing we can do is to tell the country not to pay all that much attention to IA or NV because too few voters are eligible and those that can attend are reluctant, thinking of it as a test which they could flunk. First thing after the primaries is to end the caucuses. They are anti-democratic and deny the right to vote for far too many people.

    I still think that Hillary will do fine though.

  79. united 12 Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
    i could swear i wrote about 5 times for admin to get your post off this site a week or so back, when you posted an article about hillary and prostitution, and some such crap…
    am i wrong?
    you know if i am, i apologize…
    if i am not, than i wonder why you keep putting this kind of post on here? its very negative, and not the kind of b.s. that moves hillary forward…


    Uh, it wasn’t prostitution. TMZ had paparazzi video of an adult actress(outside some club) praising Hill and I used it to make fun of the media’s Oprah/Obama lovefest. Simple as that.
    Don’t worry my sense of humor often goes over most people’s heads. lol http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=392#comment-22001 / I don’t know what other postings you’re refering to, though. I mainly post straight news articles here – negative or not they DO give insight into the race and the challenges ahead for our girl…..

  80. For Hillary, its all about turnout. I am yet to see emily group’s impact. Is there any real data floating out there that I am missing?

    I don’t think you’ll see the Emily’s List and Womens Voices Women’s Vote activities in Iowa. The get-out-the-vote effort is like an iceburg. The big part is below the surface.

    Both organizations work with Harold Ickes micro-targeted voter database company, Catalist and have been preparing for this election cycle since 2004 with test marketing of mail and phone messages. Womens Voices Womens Vote increased the turnout of unmarried women 6% to 15% in their test market states in 2006.

    Here’s a little backgrounder:


    Emily’s list is targeting the 100,000 Iowa women who voted in 2004 election but who did not caucus in 2004.

    If you’ve noticed, everything Clinton is doing — from the “Caucusing is Easy” video to her Christmas ad to campaigning with Chelsea and her mom — is targeted at women in Iowa. She’s been slamming the gender card down on the poker table. I’m a little surprised that the Georgetown Social Club (Hi, Ben!) hasn’t noticed. But, of course the beltway media is exactly observant. I am really surprised that nobody in the media is snooping around the candidates’ GOTV machinery. It just shows how pathetic our press corps really is.

    Don’t forget that Karl Rove stole the 2000 and 2004 elections with micro-targeted get out the vote efforts. He said, in a review of the 2000 election in one of those post-mortem forums, that the best get-out-the-vote effort he had ever seen was Hillary Clinton’s 2000 race in NY.

  81. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/12/20/paris-hilton-eat-your-heart-out.aspx

    Posted Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:30 PM

    Eat Your Heart Out, Paris Hilton

    Andrew Romano

    GRUNDY CENTER, Iowa–Poor Max Higgason.

    A 69-year-old retired sewing-machine mechanic from Eldora, Iowa, he attended this morning’s Hillary Clinton “Every County Counts” event in nearby Grundy Center expecting that afterwards he’d “get right out of here and go to my car and go home.” But he found himself holding his very first press conference instead.

    The “typical voter” interview is a ritual repeated at every campaign stop, often at random. In need of a quick cast of heartland characters to color our stories, reporters scan, stalk and, once our prey is cornered, select from a fixed menu of questions: Where do you stand in the decision-making process? Did Candidate X change your mind? What do you think of all the negativity? Where can I get a good loose meat sandwich? (I may be the only one who asks that.) But Higgason wasn’t a random target. In fact, there were five of us–Stumper, Pat Healy from the New York Times, Jay Newton-Small from Time and two other scribes–blocking his exit.

    The reason: Higgason admitted that he was supporting a rival and challenged Clinton to change his mind. “I’ve been leaning towards John Edwards because of his tales of two Americas, which really strikes a chord with many of us, especially in Iowa, I think,” he said. “I’d like to have your input on what you think about his statements and the situation.” That’s manna for the media–the campaign in miniature. How will Clinton sell herself to a swing voter? And will it work?

    For her part, Clinton steered clear of red meat–despite Higgason’s fondness for “two Americas” rhetoric. “Well, of course, I’ve spent 35 years working to bridge the gap between different parts of our country,” she said, launching into a long list of specific accomplishments (children’s health care, minimum wage). No applause lines about corporate greed or lobbyists. The point, she said, was experience: “I think it’s really important that you look at what we’ve actually done. Not at what we say or what we tell you we hope to do. Because the best way to determine who can actually deliver change is by looking at who has already done it.”

    How did it go over with Higgason? “Very impressed,” he said. “She may have won me over. I feel like, with a lot of them, their hearts are in the right place. But she would be able to take off quicker from the start.”

    When everyone stopped scribbling and dispersed, I asked Higgason if he enjoyed his now-diminishing celebrity.

    “It was interesting,” he said, inching toward the door. “But I have to bail.”

  82. Regarding Obama’s present vote on sex shops, all of us must remind voters that his attempt to shelve the problem and leave it to what he calls local authorities simply fails to cut the mustard. For municipal laws at times conflict with county laws, and the jurisdiction of unincorporated areas is simply unknown in many cases. Moreover, development is always uneven, and different laws were written at different times, and this creates a set of loopholes sex shops can exploit as they engage in dilatory tactics in order to continue their enterprises. Another popular dilatory tactic is the exploitation of grandfather provisions.

    A review of some of the cases discussed online reveals how impossible it is to remove a sex shop once it is established, even if it is directly across the street from a high school. The Redwood City, California, case come to mind unbidden. A series of ruses are usually deployed: merchandise is rearranged; the business decides to file a first amendment suit; inventory is rearranged in order to comply with some standard, but all the same objects and bodies are for sale in the store; or even worse, they will just remove signs and tint the windows or cover them in plastic. Some will just refuse to file paperwork with the local authorities, thereby making it impossible for the latter to even determine what is occurring in these businesses.

    Because of all the loopholes that can be exploited as a result of jurisdictional ambiguities and of the uneven growth of cities and towns, state action is necessary. By attempting to displace this problem to what his campaign call local authorities, Obama has once again demonstrated that he has mastered the art of disingenuousness. He understands state action is required, and he understands that the entire Illinois legislature voted for this attempt to standardize zoning laws. Why did he vote present? Which DEVELOPERS or business owners involved in SEX SHOPS or PROSTITUTION donated to his campaign? Who did he not want to offend?

    Taylor Marsh’s radio show yesterday offers valuable insights into this vote. I thought I would offer my perspective after reviewing legal cases, city council minutes and newspaper articles last night. But however one views sex shops and zoning commissions, this vote is unacceptable, and everyone should discuss it in a manner that will at least broach a discussion about this present voting record. For not only does the vote render him unelectable with certain constituencies; it reveals he will create any excuse in order to avoid casting the right votes at the right time. And yes, prohibiting the operation of sex shops within a 1000 foot radius from a school and a church is the right vote to cast.

    His campaign is disgusting. Local authorities? Tell that to the grandmother whose property value will decrease. Tell that to the mother who is disgusted her eight year old daughter has to pass a porn shop on her way to class. Tell that to the teacher whose students are passing around objects they purchased at the sex shop across the street. Or tell that to the seventeen year old who has to endure the whistles of adult men who just received a lap dance in the strip joint located next door to her high school.

    I am officially disgusted.

  83. As for a cocaine use issue with Obama and Bush, there’s a big difference. With Bush it was rumours. With Obama — it’s ADMITTED. Obama wrote about it himself in his first autobiography.

    Well, okay, Bush did evade and refuse to answer about his drug use — but there’s still a big difference. With Bush it’s speculation. With Obama it’s admitted fact.

  84. hillfans, im off topic but i just got finished looking up andrew sullivan’s bio(hillary hater) and i found full of contridictions. he was a avid supporter of the iraq war and a bushie in 2000. he supposed supported john kerry over bush but i find it hard to believe. i knew he is gay but he has bigger personal problems i really don’t want to get into. look him up and u will know. anyway i see him often on bill maurer’s show on hbo trashing hillary with hate. he endored obama for pres for the dems and ron paul for gop, talk about some one that can’t make up his mind who to support. plus i know it sounds shallow he looks weird looking too.

  85. 1950, Obama wins. drugs will kill his character. no doubt about it. take it from someone who has lived in midwest and down south and has lots of republican friends.

    torrendt, yeah, AS is a bad man. we better stay away from him 🙂

  86. Gladiatorstail wrote above:

    “why are obama and edwards supporters so effective?
    because they act while we discuss it.”

    That’s a very interesting observation, but obviously you don’t mean the people on this forum ONLY discuss it. Many of you talk about some of the things you are doing for the campaign. I’m impressed enough to know you guys are out of my league even though I’ve been around and involved in Democratic politics for years.

    Your comment gives me a vision of college age people excitedly pouring their inane drivel into every political “comments” invitation for all the blogs. I’m sure it serves mostly as a nuisance factor. Some people here seem to contribute much better stuff now and then.

    It’s frustrating for me to read the Rezko thing here, and other places, and wonder why the media is not treating this more seriously. I can only wonder what anyone can do about it beyond wrting such a blog in protest.

    I believe the Whitewater thing was actually pushed by a group of right wing extremist attorneys. Then the media merely followed their progress. Apparently we don’t have anything equally evil in our party. Still, I wish we could find some effective means to force it into national discussion. If Obama were to become our nominee before this gets widely dissemated, we could be stuck with the Republicans in the White House again.

    But, I found this site because I was aggravated at the treatment Hillary was getting from the media. Fortunately the Internet is being used quite effectively by our side, and led by many of the people who post here. At least I can have some insight into what is really happening. I thank all of you for what you do.

    I hope something can be done on this instead of merely discussing it. I can only wish good luck to all of you.

  87. Just watched BHO on Morning Joke with my son this morning against my better judgement. That said, however, my son has what may be a very valid point (or two).

    BHO is peaking too soon. MSNBC in particular has been building him up for a big let down. Before BHO came on, my son said that Joe and Mika were seriously discussing the Illinois “present” votes and not in a positive or flattering way. After greeting BHO, Mika got right to the point by asking him about his “present” voting habit, which, of course, he deflected with the same excuses we’ve already heard. He got zero softball questions although they set him up by saying that his Christmas ad wasn’t as bad as the other religious ones. Later in the segment he was asked how it was that he got his family to cooperate and replied that his six year old daughter berated him to get his lines right … so much for a spontaneous performance.

    The last question, which I, not being a football fan would have totally missed, was about the Chi Bears football team. Joe asked BHO what about the Bears. My son said that the hidden message was that the media had built up expectations for the Bears to succeed and that the team had pretty much gone off the cliff in failure. Wonder if the subtlty was lost on BHO?

    Finally, after wishing BHO a merry Christmas or words to that effect, BHO did not get a chance to respond. Joe turned to Mika and started up a conversation and BHO was still sitting there on camera for a few seconds before the split screen dropped away. BHO had been dismissed.

    Afterwards, Joe and Mika discussed that her father and brother was working for BHO’s campaign and that she had another brother working for John McCain’s campaign.

    From Mika’s whole reaction to the BHO interview my son said “she’s left the reservation”, meaning she’s over the BHO thing.

    Amazing all the way around.

  88. BM excellent report. you know what changed the whole thing? the Hillary interview. I remember both Mika and Joe perplexed when Hillary gave them kudos for getting up that early and going to work. I could see Mika and Joe actually saying throughout the show that Hillary understood their plight. after that, I keep seeing both of them being “fair”. I know I sound wierd but I could see Joe feeling uncomfortable when Chris Mathews ranted on Hillary’s ad yesterday. 🙂

  89. Likewise, my son watches the body language and what is said perhaps more closely and objectively than some of us do, as he’s a Ron Paul fan (although if Ron Paul fails, he’ll vote for Hillary .. go figure).

    My son says that Stewie et al. are building BHO up for that huge drop off the cliff. The way that they build him up and almost idolize his every move and word, and Stewie’s ranting about how bad bad Hillary is going to smother BHO in his crib (metaphorical for baby bed or ghetto reference to BHO’s mansion?) at least four times last night, added to his Evita rant about Hillary, is an exaggerated over-the-top performance.

    Both Stewie and Joe are experienced political insiders who know full well that without the drama, there is no political contest. The Rips are a total washout who keep delivering with stupid comments, personal histories, and campaign ads. What have the Dems given the media to work with except old rehased Hillary bashing that nobody is even paying attention to anymore except those who are already Hillary haters and BHO and JRE idolators?

    As my son says, the only path to the White House is through Hillary and she ain’t budging. The only way the media gets a real “contest” is to stir the pot.

    Hillary beats BHO up in every policy area you can mention, he’s made it all too easy with what he thought was a masterful piece of literature by exposing his past in his book — hoping to get those stories out of the way, the media with Oprah’s help have built him into “The One”, Hillary surrogates began to use some of his own info against him, and now blogs like Hillaryis44 and Taylor Marsh and some others are expanding on the material he himself provided and the media is starting ever-so-slowly to pay attention.

    People are going to discuss all this through the holidays and the next thing you know it’ll be Jan 3rd and Jan 8th and we’re off to the races.

    In the mean time, I plan to keep up my anti-BHO tirades at TM and elsewhere, as I’m sure admin will do here since Big Media has tipped its hand by letting us know it’s watching (hi Ben). Maybe they’ll learn a thing or two and follow up. We can “hope”.

    Done ranting for the day.

  90. b-merry..

    you’d better not be finished ranting for the day. we depend on your rants. anyway, interesting take on the BO interview. i didn’t have the stomach for it this AM and turned the channel. you are fortunate to have your son there to provide a second set of eyes and ears.

    off to the “dread-mill” then onto the showers to get ready for the HRC visit. will keep you informed as to the turn-out. hope lots of people show. hey..the sun is out!!

    btw, i do agree with the guiliani (sp)take on setting-up a drop-out. seems to mirror

  91. b-merry you have a smart son.LOL. at least mika is running a disclaimer about her family is supporting obama. i think she was not disclosing that very much if at all before.

  92. BM I think your analysis is right on the money. I bet these guys are really frustrated. They are not really making a dent. Two day ago RCP Iowa average was Obam +3.8 and today it is a Tie.

  93. Humor me. Go see what BHO told a roundtable group in Exeter, N.H., yesterday would be his one priority as president if he could only have “one”.


  94. BHO told the independents that he would nominate Republicans to his cabinet and was interrupted by the independent rep who told him that they prefer independents to republicans.

  95. Love those poll numbers, DemHawk. Now get them to fix the Iowa polls a little better.

    Everybody here knows this campaign is working hard to get women out to vote on the 3rd, but here is a story that goes into that just a little more than I’ve seen so far.

    I hope they are successful in adding 5,000 to 10,000 women who vote regularly but who have never been to the caucuses, as described in this story. There were only 124,000 total voters there in 2004, so this could make a huge difference.


  96. I watched the ET interview last night on their website — her answer to the question about Oprah was generous, graceful and sincere.

  97. Not to be annoying, but I’m a college student. I feel there is a lot of hate towards us from you all. Yes we are an outspoken bunch, but not all of us are uneducated cows. And I’d also like to think my vote, and my generations, does make a difference. I’ve been working hard to talk to my friends about what Hillary wants to do as opposed to Obama and it’s working. So not all of us are hate spammers!

  98. LJ, you are not annoying at all. Everybody knows college students are all over the political spectrum. They respresent a tremendous amount of energy. Being selfish for my side of things, I just wish more of them were like you.

  99. Hi, haven’t posted in a while, but , I get my news from you guys. Thanks. I have decided to contact the Hillary campaign in so cal to see if I can help. I wanted to let you guys know about the CBS video of hillary and obama. Harry Smith asks each one about the last movies they have seen or whats on their ipods. Its lite hearted and fun but also revealing. I don;t have the link( not very good at that stuff) but if you go over to talk left.com they have the link. Hillary is so warm and funny and Obama is stiff and guarded ( imo). Has anybody seen it?

  100. LJ, I certainly don’t feel that way at all. I’m not much older than you. That is disappointing if people are saying stuff like that. I’m sorry.

  101. LJ, the context of the age related comments come from a reaction to Obama’s generational baiting. It was Obama who called Ted Kennedy “old”, Obama who said people over 50 were not fully functioning, Obama who dissed AARP at their forum and convention. It is also Obama who has used ripublican talking points regarding Social Security not being there for younger people. This Social Security talking point in particular was a conscious move by Ripublicans to try to separate young from old in the Social Security war Bush tried to start in early 2005 – and now Obama is employing it for his political benefit.

    The cross generational comments here are in the context of Obama’s generational baiting. Hillary is running a campaign of uniting the generations which is one reason why Hillary’s mom and daughter are campaigning with her. Obama is the one who is running a campaign on generational baiting. Obama also conflates the issue of student voting with the issue of imported “ghost” voters to try to bait students into a generational war on his side. Obama is a a divider not a uniter.

    The context of generational comments is aimed at Obama, not young voters.

  102. terrondt:

    On Sully you are so right; I have a feeling about what you mentioned in his bio that
    you may not want to talk about.

    as far his advice about supporting BO – a face that a boy inn Lahore, Pakistan can look upto.

    Well I have some advice for Sully and his British BBC person Katy who appears with stewie/tweety:
    Why does not UK elect a home grown British Pakistani as their leader to replace Brown! What would tell that to the world.

    Also Obama has a “grudge” against thw whole British colonialism; his book “dreams about
    my father” has his so vividly!

    Sully has his problems! Somethings I can feel sorry for him but not his way of thinking!

  103. LJ,
    not true at all, there’s Hawk (college-kid) who is so well-loved on this blog and his posts are very looked-forward to; it’s barack who is trying to make a wedge between young and old voters – and that’s what Admin’s narrative is about.
    on this thread, every hillary-loving idea and opinion is welcomed with open arms.

  104. LJ, it’s possible and even probable that exception was taken to my mention of “college age” people. I understand that and sincerely wish I had said it differently. Since BHO has been directing a lot of his organizing effort toward young people, and since I remember how I was in my college days, I sometimes fear he and his team are using them to write a lot of hate email. One doesn’t need any college education to hate. Also, almost anyone can write a hateful piece intended for effect and not actual hatred. I’ve known Young Republicans who considered that just another political tool.

    While you may read a lot of comments on here directed toward how other candidates are conducting their respective campaigns, I’m sure you will seldom find any real hatred for any of them on this forum. It’s possible one of those may become the VP choice. Of course, we can feel very strongly toward some of them in the heat of a campaign.

    I will take the liberty to say we certainly don’t hate people of any age group. A few media people and bloggers may come in for special attention now and then, but even that isn’t permanent. College students are not the problem with this country; most of us probably look to them as being the solution ultimately. I know I do.

    I hope you will continue to post on this forum, and I encourage you to get some of your friends to join you. I believe you will be more than welcome.

  105. Ellen Goodman kicks MoDo butt with her essay today…

    December 21, 2007
    The Wrinkle-Gate Double Standard
    By Ellen Goodman

    BOSTON — And so we gather to praise the old feminazi hunter himself. Rush Limbaugh has single-handedly brushed aside the blinding snow on the windshield and let us have another clear view of the double standard running down this campaign highway.

    This week, our man Rush offered a lengthy monologue about an unflattering photo of Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire cold. He ended by asking the question: “Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”

    The rest is here:


  106. Heres a favorable article about Bill campaigning in NH.

    Link: youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/21/bill-clinton-calls-wife-a-world-class-genius-when-it-comes-to-helping-others/

  107. Sorry I’ve missed out on all your comments for the past couple hours (read them, though) but while cruising for any real BHO news came across an article about former Clinton administration folks now allegedly supporting BHO and criticizing Bill for being “harsh” on poor little Obambi.

    Actually, the LA Times’ reporter wrote of ONE person who was critical, the others pretty much explained that this is politics (duh). But I just had to know what the deal was about that ONE.

    I’ve posted the lengthy article at Taylor Marsh (don’t have the courage for DKos).

    It is living proof that Obambi is not only inexperienced but also proves that he can’t even figure out when he’s being used.

    Please go read and come back with some feedback. Thanks.


  108. Thank you so much, B Merryfield, for your post on Morning Joke this morning. Digesting all that I’ve read the past few days, I think it’s clear, at minimum, that Obama’s momentum has finally stalled. That was step one. Step two is getting Hillary back on a roll, and I see signs of that as well.

    I believe Obama probably did peak too early; if the Iowa caucus had been held on Dec. 10, for example, I have little doubt he would’ve won.

    Also, pm, I agree with you on Hillary’s Oprah comments. I watched them, too, and thought they were very classy and gracious.

  109. Thanks for all the replys. I totally get about “age-baiting” now with Obama. And I’m glad Hawk is here too. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew there were young, impassioned people who weren’t only for Obama. I also do think it’s rediculous and sophomoric on youtube and on a lot of the news articles that we see these young Obama supporters posting their crap. It’s embarrassing in a certain way, but I think some of them are waking up to the bate and are realizing it’s more important to be informed and knowledgeable than be a sheep following the herd. HILLARY 08!!!

  110. That Ellen Goodman article is great, Realist!

    LJ, I’m sorry if any comments have made you feel unwelcome. You are most certainly not! Some of us have gotten pretty disgusted with comments from Obama and his camp that those that fought the battles that even allow him to run for president now are old and tired and need to step aside. He has repeatedly tried to stir up the youth vote not just for change or hope or a better way (which is fine), but as a way of shoving aside and disrespecting and jeering at the generations who fought for those things before them, and are still fighting. He has deliberately played to that nasty selfish sentiment of “you’re old, get out of the way”, and it’s wrong.

    I’m not going to take my gold retirement watch and shuffle off and STFU, as I’ve been told to do. I am going to continue to fight for the Liberal ideals and better country that we have not fully accomplished yet. I will join hands with anyone, 18 or 98, who wants to help in that goal, and respect the contributions of all, not just the young, and not just the old.

  111. New Obama website. Ready for the name?


    Greg Sargent has this one under his thumb.

    tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ hey_obama_who_are_you_calling_desprate.php

  112. B Merry et al — one thing that really grates on my nerves is when people compare this race to 1992. I’m sorry, but after 9/11 the world changed. Also, I don’t think people really respect anyone who comes from the FCC. I know I don’t. Also, didn’t Dick Morris work for Bill Clinton at some time? Just sayin.

  113. What’s funny about all these ex-Clinton admin Obambiites is that it’s pretty obvious that Hillary picked the cream of the crop from Bill’s admin, and rejected the rest. I mean, Geez, when you have Madeline Albright and Holbrooke, do you reallly need to hire every third-level assistant who ever worked for Bill as well?

    The media wants to paint all of these people as defectors, and I’m sure a few are. But a lot of them are simply either rejects or superfluous, since she had skimmed off the best already.

  114. Hil4Tex, you hit that nail right on the head.

    Next the media will be telling us that a Repug admin (heaven forgive me for saying that) would include all former BushCo castoffs … and there are plenty to pick from.

  115. Hil4Tex, for more about “all of those people”, you should read B. Merryfield’s post at:


    I promise you will like it!

  116. Sherm I read it! And yes, that article made it sound like a lot, and in this case it was one. Good catch, B Merry.

  117. Great endorsement! I liked this. After saying all the Dem candidates were good, they said this:

    “All have their passionate supporters, and for good reason. But this newspaper has come to the conclusion that the candidate with the best ideas, as well as the imagination, know-how and bearing to carry them out, is Hillary Clinton.

    She has the best health-insurance proposal of all the candidates, and there are several good proposals to choose from. She has significant international experience, considerably more than some of her rivals. Face-to-face, she is as personable, passionate and persuasive as any American political figure in recent memory, qualities that should come in handy in both domestic and international forums.

    She is! She’s wonderful! The cold stiff Hillary that the big media tries to push is a figment of their own propaganda – she does not exist.

  118. I love AnnMarie Morse’s motto (a the end of her speech in the video):

    “Never mess with a mom who is passionate about a cause.”

  119. Thanks Hil4Tex and Sherm. The laziness of the media (hi Ben) to constantly take things at face value and not look behind the curtain never ceases to amaze. Articles are so superficial that is not an easy task to pick up on the missing piece. It’s like we’re all back watching Sesame Street looking for the one thing that doesn’t belong with the other things.

  120. While we’re dropping breadcrumbs for the lazy media (hi Ben), I want to know when someone is going to bring up the touchy subject of how a certain- candidate-not-to-be-mentioned-by-name (CCNTBMBN)’s use of drugs is going to be discussed in the context of American credibility in not only the world marketplace but also the world diplomatic arena.

    I can imagine all kinds of UnPC things to say right now but won’t.

  121. If Big Media schlockmeisters are now claiming that it is remarkable for second or third tier Clinton 42 officials to support Obama, that it constitutes a defection, a jumping of ship, or whatever their small minds may make of it, then we need to set the record straight as to their motive and reason.

    They have decided to support Obama for one simple reason. (Clue: it aint because they have seen the Messiah). It is a calculation of pure self interest: they want to get in on the ground floor of a new enterprise, in the hope it will succeed so they can jump from third tier to first tier.

    That would be fine and well except for one minor thing: they have bet on the wrong horse.

  122. I presume The Fact Hub is mostly for false statements made by other candidates. However, shouldn’t such false statements made by the MSM also go in there? I was thinking about the one B. Merryfield just corrected in a post.

    Just a thought.

  123. BTW, these Web site wars are getting to be pretty sophomoric.

    And I agree about the ex-Clintonites. Thousands of people worked in Bill’s administration. There’s not room for all of them in her campaign anyway. When it comes to foreign policy, Madeleine Albright and Dick Holbrooke are indeed the best. Obama, on the other hand, has Tony Lake. Whoop do do.

  124. Yes! Joe Wilson’s article is a strong endorsement. Thanks for putting it up (just a side note though — include the full link or www in front so we can click on the link directly from your post). Thanks.

  125. I recommend everyone go to pollster.com and read the article on that Gallup NH poll. They use a very different (and controversial) likely voter methodology than other polls. The author says it’s not a good idea to compare that survey to other NH polls for that reason.

  126. I missed this article but the link was buried in another one. Philip Weiss at New York Magazine wrote back in August that Matt Drudge is intent on making Hillary president, hence his launching an attack on McCain.

    Read here:

    (http://) blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/21/who-s-winning-the-drudge-primary-cont-d.aspx

    Then here:
    (http://) nymag.com/news/media/36617/

  127. The Illinois guy is obvious. Obama is his Senator. I’m not sure I understand the Iowa guy, but perhaps regional politics.

  128. The Obamaniacs and Big Media are in a state of denial. They have made up their minds and cannot deal with contrary evidence. So they censor it, condemn it and pretend it does not exist. Nothing new here.

  129. Now, all the Stewie ranting out there. I go back to my son’s observation this morning while we were watching BHO on the Morning Joke. If you carefully read through everything Stewie says–under the guise of denouncing it–he repeats the unspeakable information over and over and over.

    Ask yourself, if you’d like for these things to silently go away, why in the world would you make a point of saying them repeatedly?

    A thinking person should come to the conclusion that Stewie wants this information disseminated as much as possible and is, in fact, making sure that the message is broadcast as loadly as possible.

    Not that Hillary wants to kill BHO. That’s just a rant, although a truly stupid one. The message is all the rest, about BHO. Stewie can’t say those things with his own lips but he sure as heck can repeat them ad nauseum in his rants. Ed Schultz helped him out mightily and I have to say that everything that I have heard Schultz say before, even though he’s an Edwards supporter, has never been anything vile about Hillary.

    This was pure theater. Disgusting theater but theater just the same.

  130. I noted later in the show yesterday, Ed Rollins (Huckabee’s guy) commented that he just felt happy that they were not discussing any of their candidates doing cocaine. Matthews laughed oddly with this “don’t let the cat out of the bag” look on his face.

  131. hillfans, as far as contributions are concern for months i have $10.00 taken out of my checking account monthly. it may be a little but it i all i can afford. every little bit counts. i am having it done as long as hillary is in the race. given i don’t make a lot of money it is tight nowadays but she is worth it. she is only the second presidential election i have given to. i given to john kerry in 2004 and the dnc, but not on a continuous basis like this year with hillary.

  132. terrondt, I donated in a “44” amount again today. 🙂 I plan to keep it up until she is in the Whitehouse.

    BTW, something in comments on Taylor Marsh just cracked me up. Someone needs to buy the domain name “Obama_got_a_booboo.com” to keep track of all of his lame childish whining about attacks.

    Admin? Anyone? That would be tooooo freaking funny.

  133. I have the handy “10-point reasons to support Hillary” card in my wallet. Today, I am reading reports of Edwards and Obama (and now Richardson) targeting Hillary on: Universal Health Care and Iraq.

    Looking at the “10-point reasons to support Hillary” that was mailed to me a long time ago ->

    NUMBER ONE is “End the war in Iraq”

    NUMBER TWO is achieve “universal AFFORDABLE health care”

    Web site comments accusing her of using “Rovian tactics,” as they say, are total projection. They want to target Hillary’s strengths: Iraq and Health care. I am glad that Hillary put those 2 items at the very top of her list.

  134. terrondt:

    You are going great; every penny coujnts, your support and vote is what Hillary wants!

    Like you I gave a dollars to Kerry for the first time; this year I am doing the best I can every month –
    depends on my variable income and expenses. Believe me – I like home cooked meals now,
    do not missing any of those stupid movies and my used car is workingn fine.

    But I will not contribute to DNC, DCCC or DSCC until I know who the Presidential candidate is!
    If they do not support Hill – I don’t need to support them!

  135. Personally, I think Mathews is encouraging the mentally ill to think about assaulting Obama – I cannot imagine any other reason to repeatly engage in provocative rhetoric about someone strangling or killing a United States senator. If he wasn’t Chris Mathews, the Secret Service would, quite appropriately, be paying him a visit.

    I literally think Matthews is attempting to provoke physical violence against either Obama or Clinton.

    We shouldn’t give this guy a pass. This is dangerous rhetoric is broadcasting.

  136. I’m rethinking this – I think he’s trying to provoke violence against Clinton. The Obama supporters are pretty fragile, and I think he’s trying to push one of them to act out against Clinton to save the baby senator from her strangling him.

    This would be one thing if he only used that phrase once. But he repeatedly references strangling and death. If this was any other politician that Tweety was addressing, the world would be howling.

    All that being said, i do think we should start referrring to Obama as the baby senator. LOL

  137. terrondt, I admire your dedication!

    Admin, I like to contribute to your site as well but don’t like the paypal arrangement (for reasons of my own) — are there other ways? Thanks.

  138. On the “killing the bay in the crib” stuff, I think it is yet more misogyny. How best to paint a woman as somehow unnatural, not like a woman ought to be? Accuse her of unnatural urges like killing children. Seriously, this is a very potent theme in the psyche – women who kill their infants are seen as more than just murderers, but as unnatural, as not normal women, devoid of natural mothering instinct. It seems more horrible for a woman to kill a child than for a man, in a subconscious uneasy sort of way.

    Using a baby-killer frame for his rant was a deliberate reinforcement of the “she is a weird unnatural woman” meme. It was a misogynist dog whistle.

  139. Speaking of the Baby Obama, I’m surprised his campaign hasn’t done a Christmas ad showing him in a manger in the Little Town of Bethlehem, with Oprah as the Virgin Mary.

  140. This Matthews stuff is very disturbing and dangerous — to have him pretend to be part of the mainstream media (if it is Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly we at least know who their intended audience is). MSNBC ought to do something about this.

  141. Hello, I’m new, first post. 🙂
    I love you guys! I really can’t understand (or tolerate) all the frothing hatred for Hillary?!!? The comments on Joe Wilson’s HuffPo piece are insanely vitriolic. I just don’t get it.
    People act like Hillary killed their dogs or something. WTF is that all about? The only thing I can liken it to is hatred of GWB. With W, I think the dislike of him as a “leader” is accomponied by a feeling of RESENTMENT. (Like, we resent that your unqualified, lazy ass even GOT this job in the first place) Are people resentful of Hillary? And if so, what the hell for??

  142. I hope the campaign stops sending a rep to Tweety’s show. Why should they let any one be the idiot’s punching bag? I believe the viewers would atleast note the absence.

  143. Analyzing NYTimes Healy’s Article on Bill Clinton’s interview with Charlie Rose — good one. The way Healy wrote it up (and some TV guys picked it up), I understood it to mean that Clinton’s aides were trying to stop the interview in the middle. However, when I actually saw the interview, I saw that Rose said that the aides were asking to finish up at the very end of the interview. Context makes a world of difference. What do they teach in journalism schools these days or is it just Healy? But there are so many of them.


  144. LJ, I apologize if I’ve sounded bad with references to Obama ‘packing caucuses with kids’ and other refernces to ‘kids’. It’s just hard to put in all the qualifiers and spell things out in a short post — and also likely to cause confusion or make it seem like I’m characterizing ALL kids as [whatever].

    Some people don’t seem to understand history, or know much about it. EG people who don’t see the contrasts between the Bush admins and the Clintons’ first terms. Or people who don’t know what happened to McGovern in 1972. It’s reasonable that people around 20 wouldn’t know those things; it’s an age when that might be a sensible, healty worldview except for those who deliberately study history. Really maybe it’s shorthand for ‘naive uneducated people of all ages’. I’m sorry if it suggests that all kids are naive and uneducated (like I was :-))).

    If you see a better way a post of mine could be phrased, I’d love to hear it, each time.

  145. To the new person who asked why some people hate Hillary as much as others hate Bush. Competent politicians get hated too, at least competent Democrats. FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton — all got the same kind of hatred HIllary does.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr recently made a blog post about that (at Huffington Post iirc).

    Maybe the difference is, as you say, Bush is hated because he’s stupid and does a bad job; when people are doing a good job, as the Clintons did, their haters have to make up more personal reasons to justify the hatred.

  146. I’m glad to see some places have got the Alice Palmer story, and she’s with Hillary!

    Obama has been described as too idealistic, but also praised for his dirty tricks in getting Palmer and ALL other opponents off the ballot. That’s not the sort of ‘pragmatism’ that JFK, RFK, and Hillary use! They negotiate with the other part and find solutions, and put them all up to the voters.

Comments are closed.