– William makes with the funny.
– Sydney Pollack, director of “Three Days of the Condor” and “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” (among many wonderful films) and co-producer of “Michael Clayton” has died at the age of 73.
– Allegre at Democratic Daily has “A Simple and Fair Solution For FL & MI” from Lanny Davis. Jeralyn also linked to this piece yesterday and has some thoughts on it worth reading.
– I agree with the first half of this statement from riverdaughter: “The media, Obama campaign and the DNC are now engaged in a type of psychological warfare on us. I’m not being paranoid. Every one of you has experienced in one form or another…”
It’s the second part that’s makes me wonder what I’m missing, because it’s not the first anti-BTD reference I’ve come across: “…even as recently as yesterday at the hands of Big Tent Democrat. And where is HE getting it from?”
Armando is one of the few Obama supporters whose writing I’ve found to be likable and, more importantly, insightful. And he’s the only one I’ve yet found who can be as critical of Obama as he is supportive. Further, he’s arguing a popular point (with others) at a forum where that point is highly unpopular — which isn’t easy, but certainly admirable. Anybody want to clue me in as to what’s going on?
– Taylor Marsh announced on Monday that she’ll be having a variety of front pagers with divergent views (i.e. some pro-Obama blogging from the writers — but since Taylor is selecting them I’m actually interested in seeing what they say. Of course, that could change…).
– What the FUCK kind of teacher is THIS asshole? How can a teacher do this to a five year-old boy? I hope Florida’s Centers for Autism and Related Disabilities can do something about this discrimination. (Via Suburban Guerrilla)
– Dave Niewert has a horrifying post about the Bush Junta’s method for cracking down on illegal immigraton.
Very simply, I’m asking: Do you know anyone who *doesn’t* support Clinton who thinks Clinton is getting a raw deal in this process? That is, are there any independent observers out there who agree with your assessment of the situation? If not, why do you think that is?
I ask because I can think of many individuals, such as myself and, yes, Atrios who don’t support either Clinton or Obama and who don’t see the bile eminating from the Obama campaign that you seem to see.
You seem to be seizing on a percieved attitude of sexism in the electorate at large and projecting that on Obama, blowing things he’s said (such as the “periodically” statement) wildly out of proportion in order to imply that he = his most strident supporters. I would suggest that you are doing this because you are emotionally invested in a Clinton victory – as evidenced by the fact that you’d risk a hundred years war in Iraq and the further eroding of your civil liberties just to ‘punish’ her Democratic rival.
Also, I would say the Obama’s campaign’s ‘hyping’ the Kennedy remarks is akin to Clinton’s ‘hyping’ the Rev. Wright controversy or ‘hyping’ the “bitter” comments – you can’t expect rivals for a nomination not to take advantage of their opponents’ mistakes – that’s just politics. You can’t demand that Obama not criticize Clinton and then turn around and cheer on Clinton’s criticisms of Obama. Well, you can, but it would be inconsistent and dishonest.
Tim said: “Very simply, I’m asking: Do you know anyone who *doesn’t* support Clinton who thinks Clinton is getting a raw deal in this process? That is, are there any independent observers out there who agree with your assessment of the situation? If not, why do you think that is?”
Yes I do. Several, in fact. But don’t take my word for it — find some yourself.
And now a few quick thoughts:
1) Clinton didn’t hype Wright, WRIGHT hyped himself after Fox hyped him.
2) Obama made a VERY. BIG. POINT. about his being a different candidate, one who would not, under ANY circumstances, campaign negatively. He then engaged in the most vicious smear campaign launched against a Democrat. That is not capitalizing on an opponent’s mistakes, that’s hypocrisy of the highest order.
3) There was nothing wrong about Clinton’s RFK remark. She made no mistake — except to apologize for them after Obama and his race-baiting minions once again leveled charges of racism at her, for stating a fact (the length of the primary season). Obama and Co. surpassed Rove with that behavior.
Obama crossed a line that he shouldn’t have with that one, and he’s going to suffer the consequences of it.
And Tim, your argument is ridiculously flawed.
First, you seem to think that only “independent observers” can be trusted to determine that Clinton has gotten a raw deal (also implying that she hasn’t — very foolish of you).
By your logic, Democrats can’t be trusted to criticize their own party, because they’re Democrats and not “independent observers.”
Second, the fact that dozens of pro-Clinton bloggers have documented the media’s rampant anti-Clinton sexism doesn’t make the video recordings and transcripts of “news” shows and the “news” stories making demonstrably false assertions any less real. And anti-Clinton bloggers who document the same things don’t lend such documentation more weight simply because they’re not pro-Clinton.
Third, it’s not “the electorate at large” that has treated Clinton unfairly, it’s the DNC with it’s selective enforcement of its own rules — to the detriment of Clinton and the party — the media, and a large chunk of the blogosphere.
Fourth, your implication that the sexist treatment Clinton has received really only exists in the heads of pro-Clinton bloggers is not only insulting in its condescension, but ludicrous. Why don’t you do some research into the subject?
Finally, let’s borrow a page from Obama’s book. You deny the sexism that Clinton has been inundated with, so why don’t I make some leaps in logic a la the RFK smear and state that if you deny the sexism directed at Clinton, perhaps you’re a denier other historical things, like the Holocaust. My god, why… YOU’RE AN ANTI-SEMITE!
Absurd, isn’t it? Now you know how disgusted decent human beings feel about the way Obama took Clinton’s statements about the length of the primary season and tortured them into an inference that Obama could be assassinated.
“Tim said: ‘Very simply, I’m asking: Do you know anyone who *doesn’t* support Clinton who thinks Clinton is getting a raw deal in this process? That is, are there any independent observers out there who agree with your assessment of the situation? If not, why do you think that is?’
Yes I do. Several, in fact. But don’t take my word for it — find some yourself.”
Like who?
Just curious: Which part of “find some yourself,” “your argument is ridiculously flawed,” and “Why don’t you do some research into the subject?” did you not understand?
Didn’t your parents ever teach you the value of looking something up in the dictionary yourself rather than running to others and asking for answers? Finding answers for yourself is a better way to learn and retain what you’ve learned.
Besides, I have the feeling that no matter who I point to, it simply won’t satisfy you because you’re not interested in challenging your own beliefs, just attacking mine.
Two points:
a. I think its clear by this exchange that you can’t name anyone who doesn’t support Clinton who feels the Democratic National Committee has unfairly discriminated against her.
b. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but, again, I think you’re confusing the Internet supporters of Obama with the campaign itself. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that the Obama campaign unfairly criticized Clinton for her Kennedy remarks – so what? Do you really think it’s out of the ordinary for political opponents to seize on the percieved deficiencies of their opponents? Do you really think the Clinton campaign’s seizing on the ‘bittergate’ controversy is not an analogous situation?
Wow. I TOTALLY didn’t see that coming. At all.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at, exactly. Regardless of the behavior of the press, I don’t understand what that has to do with the Obama campaign or the DNC.
Obama’s Hyprocrisy on the Campaign Trail:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/67934
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-clinton-foreign-policy-memo/
http://thepage.time.com/obama-response-memo-to-clinton-on-his-iraq-stance/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Plouffe_You_have_to_wonder_whether_shell_be_open_and_honest_with_the_American_people.html
http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/21/starting-the-day-off-right/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Axelrod_They_are_literally_willing_to_do_anything.html
http://thepage.time.com/obama-response-memo-to-clinton-on-his-iraq-stance/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama_mar16,0,6399743.story
How the DNC has railroaded Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating
I also have copy of the “DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting Materials on Florida and Michigan” if you’d like me to email it to you. You can study it, do some research into news archives, and see how the DNC has selectively enforced its rules to Clinton’s detriment.
And Tim do you really believe that “Bittergate,” is analogous to the RFK smear? Obama makes disparaging remarks about a large section of the country’s population vs. Clinton talks about past Dem primaries that have lasted all the way to June and gets accused of wanting Obama dead?
Do you really want to ignore that leap in logic from the Obama campaign, which went out of its way to push this story despite Obama’s “politics of hope and change” schtick? Because for someone who claims not to have dog in this fight, you are rather persistent in downplaying the highly unpleasant facts regarding Obama’s hypocrisy.
I’ve read all the links you’ve provided. Most of them seem pretty ordinary cases of one candidate asserting that they’d be the better choice than their opponent – hardly objectionable.
The one article that is troubling is the Chicago Sun Times’ account of Obama apparently saying that Clinton is ‘too polarizing to win’. The problem with this article is that the polarizing bit is a paraphrase: nowhere does Obama actually say that Clinton ‘can’t win’, he only says that he would win more easily and more easily usher in “a majority in Congress.” Nowhere does he say, for instance, something along the lines of praising McCain over Clinton. Obama never said, for instance, that McCain passed the ‘commander-in-chief test’ while Clinton had yet to do so.
As for the DNC ’sabotaging’ Clinton, I don’t understand what the beef is supposed to be – per the NY Times editorial, New Hampshire moved its primary, as its done every election, to maintain its first-in-the-nation status? Clinton won New Hampshire, I’m not understanding the problem there. The objection perhaps is that Michigan and Florida, unlike New Hampshire, were not allowed to move their contests. But this is consistent with past Democratic contests, not a special effort designed to sabotage Hillary Clinton. Clinton chair Terry McAuliffe actually stated in 2004 that if states like Michigan were allowed to move their primaries without punishment that there’d be [direct quote] “chaos” in the nominating process. Seems the DNC is just following precedent.
Tim, you’re either highly obtuse or incredibly dishonest — which means you must be a Republican, since you “don’t have a dog in this fight.”
Obama decried negative campaigning as recently as April, saying the practice has made “…Washington such a miserable place where all we do is bicker and all we do is fight,”
Doesn’t exactly jibe with calling Clinton “disingenuous,” “divisive” and “polarizing” (guess Obama hasn’t looked in a mirror for a while), saying that “she will say and do anything to win this election,” repeating the charge, Obama’s campaign manager floating conspiracy theories about the Clintons… those are just a few quotes from the links listed in comment 10.
Obama has engaged in character assassination rather then high-minded, issue-oriented debates about their policy differences, and yet you try to casually dismiss his behavior. That’s very telling.
As for the DNC’s sabotage, you obviously didn’t examine all of those links or do any research to see that the DNC hasn’t been following its own rules. Here’s another that nicely condenses the argument.
However, don’t bother to reply. I’m quite done wasting time on you; no further comments of yours will be printed here.