Harwood: McCain ‘Has Benefited From Very Friendly Press Coverage For Many Years’
Harwood: McCain ‘Has Benefited From Very Friendly Press Coverage For Many Years’
During a discussion of the possible presidential general election match-up between Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) on Meet the Press this morning, John Harwood — CNBC correspondent and New York Times political writer — said that the McCain campaign is already “trying to work the referees in advance” to argue that Obama gets more favorable media coverage than McCain.
But Harwood noted that some would find McCain’s strategy “ironic” because the press — whom according to Harwood were McCain’s “base” in 2000 — have been “very friendly” to McCain over the years:
HARWOOD: Now John McCain has benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he’s going to try to argue, which will have a corollary benefit of rally conservatives if he can pull it off, of saying the press wants Obama to win. I’m pushing back…
RUSSERT: In 2000, John McCain referred to the press as his base.
HARWOOD: They were his base.
Watch it:
Indeed, the press have been “very friendly” to McCain, who has even reciprocated with kind gestures of his own. After hosting a barbecue last March for reporters covering his campaign, one attendee from the AP wrote an article shortly thereafter calling McCain a “man of the people” for taking a high-speed train despite noting he rode first class.
But as a number of high profile political reporters have noted, someday the media will scrutinize McCain, they’re just not sure when.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “Harwood: McCain ‘Has Benefited From Very Friendly Press Coverage For Many Years’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
I know! I know! Exactly November 12, 2008~!~!
May 11th, 2008 at 4:39 pmOr maybe November 5th…
May 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pmThat’s what I was thinking. Fits in so well with their hard-hitting reporting in the lead-in to the war.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pmObama and McCain have both benefited from a press corps that doesn’t scrutinize, over hypes their successes and minimizes or explains away their failures.
One reason I support Clinton for the Democratic nomination is that I’m convinced the media REALLY favors McCain.
If Obama is nominated and loses the favorable press he’s enjoyed until now once the media gravitates to their true love, McCain, Obama will fall apart because he’s never had to run and win while experiencing media criticism and scrutiny.
Clinton is used to winning despite the constraints posed by a hostile press, including journalists who feel free to make things up about her when it suits them.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pmloses the “favorable press he’s enjoyed until now ”
Reverend Wright, 24X7 for two months?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:49 pmIn 2000, Fohn McCain referred to the press as his base.
- - I guess in 2008 that makes him Faux McCain, eh?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pmOh PLEASE. The media has minimized Obama’s ties to Wright and minimized the severity of what Wright has said.
Do you really think Hillary Clinton could explain away hearing 20 years of racist, anti-American diatribes by saying that none of those comments had ever been made while she was in attendance, and therefore she had NO IDEA that the guy who performed her wedding, baptized her kids, blessed her house and provided the title for her autobiography had said?
I think not — only Obama or a McCain can get by with that. Why? Because they benefit from the treatment they receive from a fawning, sycophantic press corps.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pmThe high speed Acela train is also really expensive even for coach seats (usually as much or more than a plane ride), this is no man of the people train.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm28% of Americans support Bush
48% approve of McCain.
Yet McCain is running on the Bush platform. This is a failure of the media. The media has failed our wonderfull country.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pmTake TWO excerpts from 20 years worth of sermons, and conflate that into ” hearing 20 years of racist, anti-American diatribes”. Nice try. Please vote for Nader. Obama won’t need your vote to win the presidency.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pmsomeday the media will scrutinize McCain, they’re just not sure when.
Wouldn’t that entail them actually doing their jobs as journalists?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pmNot gonna happen in todays corporate agenda driven MSM.
We can start criticizing McCain by asking him what he means when he calls a Super Majority of Americans the favorites of the Hamas Terrorist Organization.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pmThe sycophantic reichwing press is STILL the BASE OF THE GOPERVERTS.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pmSoon as VietNamVetsForTruth cut into McCains POW record, he will be history. He has already admitted his surrender to torture as a POW in spite of the fact he was handled with kid gloves because he was a son of an admiral. They even offered him his release, which he refused, because he seemed to want to testify against policies of the United States.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Wake up.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pmClinton is not going to get the nomination. She just does not have the numbers. Better get used to the idea of supporting Obama, unless you want McCain to win.
Guido: Just to illustrate how moronic the press actually is was obvious in the way they handled Obama’s response to McCain’s suggestion that he somehow supported Hamas. The insinuation of this sick, base level of slime throwing by McTorture was somehow totally overlooked and the press focused instead on Obama’s comment about bearing(s).
How anyone with more than a room temp IQ can compare a remark about someone losing their path versus another calling one basically a terrorist sympathizer is beyond me. This is like comparing apples to watermelons!
Thank goodness that the majority of americans are much, much more intelligent than John McCrazy or any member of the whoring fascist press! Thank goodness!
May 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pmWayne: Amen! There is no way Clinton can possibly get the numbers so she loses on the math, money (already in the hole) and momentum. I’m surprised actually to see how much traction Hillary has lost since last week. It’s as though she’s somehow faded into the woodwork.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pmWaltTheMan: I can’t wait to see McCain’s “pseudo heroic military record” totally outed. His father, the big admiral, got him out of hot water all his life (sound familiar? Like Chimpy?) and then he was responsible for the death of 167 of his own men when he mounted the incorrect guns on the boat. Funny thing that Pappy Admiral flew in a helicoptor that time to rescue only one individual while others were dying: that’s right….Johnny McCrazy.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pmFohn McCain? What, we have a new contender in the race?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pmLet’s correct the typo.
Russert: I fawn over McCain….
May 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pmsatirev,
May 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pmWhy don’t you get the aircraft carrier fire story correct, instead of repeating what someone told you about what they heard about it on Fox and Friends?
Klem Kiddilehopper Says:
satirev,
Why don’t you get the aircraft carrier fire story correct, instead of repeating what someone told you about what they heard about it on Fox and Friends?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
If you know the correct story, please tell us about it.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pmThere are conflicting reports of what happened, but McIIIrd was said to have ‘wet started’ his aircraft to scare the pilot behind him. A wet start sends a burst of flame out the tailpipe, like a car backfiring. This is said to have triggered the zuni bomb that hit his fuel tank, starting the whole mess. McIIIrd scrambled off his burning airplane and made no attempt to rescue the pilot he had put in danger, who was incinerated. 167 dead sailors later, McIIIrd was quietly transferred to another ship.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pmHere’s one storey
and
May 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pmAnother
Holy shit, that is unbelievable.
Thanks, RUC.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pmOMG, it was the Forrestal fire?
May 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pmYeah, I can’t wait for some earnest reporter to ask him what a ‘wet start’ is. And why he didn’t make any attempt to rescue his ‘buddy’? Probably because every other pilot on that ship hated his smug AdmiralBoy guts.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Thank you for your note of support for Hillary Rodham Clinton (R-NY). Hillary has been everyone she’s ever wanted to be during her campaign. ;)
Please stay on full-time. A fellow Clinton rooster, ‘republican hates facts’, needs, for once, to deflect its attention off spewing vitriol towards Bilbo, Zooey, and others. It needs a friend.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pmKick a** links, RU
McCain is no aviation expert. His answer to the ‘wet start’ question would probably be, “What goes on between my wife and I stays in our bedroom.”
The moral of the story: Legacy college admissions, legacy hiring and commissioning is a bad idea.
This man must make you even more proud of serving this country on your own merits, I’m sure.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm# 15 — you miss my point or choose to ignore it. The issue is not whether Obama will be nominated, but if he is, the reason WHY — a friendly press.
My point is that if Obama IS nominated, that compliant press defaults to its natural pro-McCain setting, and I fear Obama gets crushed because he can’t withstand criticism and scrutiny.
I’ll support Obama if he’s nominated (provided his most rabid supporters stop their Hillary bashing). But make no mistake about it — Obama and McCain both benefit NOW from a friendly media, but come a general election between them if Obama is nominated, that friendly press abandons Obama for their real love, McCain. At that point, will Obama demonstrate the ability to overcome adversity and carry through to victory? We already know Clinton can do that, but I have my doubts about Obama.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pmForget flag rank, I think it was outrageous enough seeing McCain III shove his way to Captain (0-6).
May 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pmAnd, I only thought his only sin was giving solace to the enemy. That alone was grounds for court martial. This incident smells of a rank(As in admiral) cover-up.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
And if Obama supporters don’t stop “bashing” Hillary to your satisfaction, you’ll be voting for McCain?
May 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pmounds like the press were the ones lacking integrity in this case, over BBQ!
May 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm#30
The media spent weeks touting its premonition that Obama’s pastor was going to sink their campaign. They didn’t even hold out on judgment and let the polls speak for themselves. When the poll numbers came out, over 60% of people felt there was too much coverage of Reverend Wright.
This fall, I believe you will find fewer people basing their vote on the direction the media wind is blowing. The media consists of only a small group of people touting their views across a nation of 300M. The smart (non-)viewers will research the issues, take their personal gage of the direction of our country (positive/negative) and make informed decisions at the poll.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pmOMG, it was the Forrestal fire?
- - Somehow I doubt the Democrats will try to Swift-carrier McCain.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm# 35 — the press spent weeks suggesting that the Wright “controversy” was a tempest in a teapot and that we shouldn’t pay attention to it. When Obama made his speech on religion in Pennsylvania, the press adopted the attitude that the matter was closed. Only Wright speaking at the National Press Club reopened the issue. At that point Obama said he disassociated himself from Wright and the press again pretty much treated the matter as though it is closed. On this matter, the press has not treated Obama as harshly as they would have treated Clinton in a similar circumstance, and they’ve let Obama set the agenda.
Support Obama for any reason you want, but do not suggest that he’s treated more harshly by the media than Clinton is.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pmJohn McCain is a man who has no code. And, he never did, 5 1/2 years in a POW camp or not.
He is a spoiled, rich-kid Playboy, not-so-bright underachiever (finished 6th from the last in his graduating class at Annopolis), adulterer, embellezler (see: The Keating 5 scandal), lying, pandering man who, in his own words, is, “older than dirt, with more scars than Frankenstein.”
He has no business even considering that he is worthy of being the most powerful leader in the world.
It is going to be a pleasure to see Barack wipe him up off the floor. I can’t wait for the debates! Beauty and the Beast
May 11th, 2008 at 7:08 pmF and J are on different sides of the keyboard. How do you mess that one up?
May 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pmThe reason Obama is where he is right now, is because of his Good Judgement, and his exceptional ability to articulate his position.
On the eve of the Iraq War, when Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton were joining the Stampede to War, Barack Obama said this:
http://dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 5/ 10/ 163233/ 227/ 209/ 513370
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Prescient.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pmRUC
McInsane’s “wet start” will soon be a wet Depends in the morning. Right now it’s probably a shot of scotch.
BTY, thanks for that virtual medication the other night. I got my prescription filled and all is fine!
May 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pmComparing the media’s treatment of McCain to Obama is a joke, right? Jumping all over Wright, over Michelle Obama, over stupid crap like lapel pins — compared to letting McCain slide on repeated errors and “misstatements”, failing to mention his flips and flops, and virtually ignoring his connections to the very special interests and lobbyists he claims to scorn? Give me a break.
And Clinton? The press has let her characterize squeakers as “victories”, and even called Texas a “victory” even though she ended up with fewer delegates than Obama. If there was coverage of her Bosnia distortion, it’s only because it was unavoidable and fueled by blog coverage.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:43 pm#41 St Auggie ~ Heh! {:>}-I
May 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm# 33 — I’m NOT voting for McCain under any circumstances. I’ve been to Iraq. I can’t support a guy who intends to continue the failed policy of the Bush administration. Neither Obama nor Clinton is sufficiently anti-Iraq war enough to suit me (nor are Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest of the Democrats who took our votes in 2006 but continue to fund the Iraq debacle), but they’re certainly better than McCain.
If he’s nominated I want to support Obama. But if his most rapid supporters keep it up with the Hitler-Hillary comparisons and the rest of their hypocritical negativity, I’ll either sit on my hands or write in Clinton’s name.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pmAt the outset of the campaign, I vowed that whoever the Democratic candidate was would get my vote. I intend to live up to that.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pmDespite the negative campaigning employed by either campaign.
#37# 35 — the press spent weeks suggesting that the Wright “controversy” was a tempest in a teapot and that we shouldn’t pay attention to it.
What network do you watch? This is not reality. Even after the numbers proved that HRC could not win the election, the networks continued to play the game that she was on the verge. Did you know that she did not actually win TX? Did you know that she actually won OH by 8% not double digits? The news media gave her the election last year…she lost it with a shoddy ran campaign designed for 1992 politics. You don’t like Obama? You will love McSame. Quit whining.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I don’t think you’ve seen that type of rabid Hillary bashing here. In fact, the most rabid and disgusting poster here is a Hillary supporter.
Obama voted against the authorization for military force in Iraq, Hillary voted in favor of it. Neither of them is perfect, but they are what we have.
I find it disgusting that Hillary has passed from acting like the “heir apparent,” to Obama’s “victim,” and now she’s actually playing the race card — after all the support from the black community, first for her husband, and later for her. I think that’s appalling.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pmBTW, I visited a rabid pro-Hillary blog today called “No Quarter.” To say I was stunned by the stories and comments is putting it mildly. Wow.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pmZooey. I find it appalling that these HRC lovers care so much about her getting her due reward, the White House, because she wants it, that they would consider voting for four more years of the worst the country has ever gone through. It says a lot about those hard working white folks that support HRC.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:24 pmIsn’t that shocking, kasinca? I know people who are for Hillary simply because she’s a woman — all thinking stops there. It’s kind of scary, actually.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pmActually, Z, Obama didn’t vote against it, cause he was still a state senator in 2002. But his famous speech against it is one of my faves… Helluva speech
May 11th, 2008 at 8:40 pmI thought he was a US Senator then. Oops. :|
May 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pmThat really was a helluva speech. :)
May 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm#50 Zooey Says:
Isn’t that shocking, kasinca? I know people who are for Hillary simply because she’s a woman — all thinking stops there. It’s kind of scary, actually.
I agree with you Zooey, other woman have gotten upset that I’m not voting for her. I said I can’t support someone that has tried to fracture the party as much as she has. She has supported McCain way too much.
O/T Happy Mother’s Day!!!
May 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm#51 RUCerious Says:
But his famous speech against it is one of my faves… Helluva speech
Thanks RUC.. That is a Hall-Of-Fame Speech..
May 11th, 2008 at 8:50 pm# 47 — Obama didn’t vote against the use of force in Iraq since it happened in 2002 and he didn’t get to the US Senate until 2005.
He did make a speech against the Iraq war in 2002, but he also praised Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s conduct of the war and he votes for continued funding, as do so many other Dems.
There were 28 Dems who voted for the 2002 use of force in Iraq resolution. Many of them now back Obama. I don’t hear him repudiating their support.
Clinton was not my first choice for President, but of the ones who are left, she’s the one I most prefer. If Obama is nominated I expect to back him, but he’s going to have to work harder to swing Clinton supporters like me over to his side if he wants to win the general election.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pmFreedom Rebel Says:
O/T Happy Mother’s Day!!!
May 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Happy Mother’s Day to you as well, Freedom Rebel. :)
May 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Yes, I’ve been reminded that Obama was a state senator then. My mistake.
I’d still like to know where all these horrible Obama supporters are, cuz I haven’t seen them. Of course, it could be a matter of degree. I have a rather funny post today at TheZoo which would probably offend you.
Do check out “No Quarter,” and see if you’d feel at home there. I doubt you would, actually.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pmI agree that Obama is going to have his work cut out for himself convincing Clinton supporters to back him and vote for him. I consider Clinton an adequate candidate, given the choices, but to allow McIIIrd a shot at BushIIIrding it for four years is pretty much all Barack should have to remind Clinton supporters. That and promising to include her in the policy/plank process at the convention.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:08 pmRight RUC, I think it would be a mistake to leave Hillary out of the policy process at the convention. She’s making noises about being VP, but I really think she would not be able to stomach that it this point — and neither could Obama.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:14 pmWho might be a VP choice?
May 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pmOff the top of my head, dbadass, I’d say Edwards, but I really haven’t given it that much thought.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pmI wouldn’t mind Richardson in the cabinet
May 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Some questions.
So, is it her ideology that you agree with?
She is solidly DLC, which is right of center on foreign policy and the economy.
She did not change her public support of the occupation until 2005 During Bush’s SOTU she rose and applauded when Bush said the surge is working. That was this year! So, which Hillary to believe? The one who sort of sounds “anti war” or the one who reacts spontaneously by applauding “Bush’s war”?
Globalization was truly accelerated during the Clinton years. She was a definite supporter of that and of NAFTA then. One look at how many jobs have been lost because of businesses fleeing to foreign countries shows how bad those policies were and are. Now she claims that she is not. Which Hillary should I believe? The one who whole heartedly supported her husband then or her backing away from her part in it now.
The Clinton campaign believes in using triangulation as a tactic for success. Do you agree with the use of this tactic? If so how do you justify using it.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says:
If Obama is nominated I expect to back him, but he’s going to have to work harder to swing Clinton supporters like me over to his side if he wants to win the general election.
Your alternative is to vote for McCain. I hope that this statement of yours is just hyperbole.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pmZooey Says:
Off the top of my head, dbadass, I’d say Edwards, but I really haven’t given it that much thought.
Here is an excellent view on choosing his VP. Covers quite a lot of ground. Sorry, I don’t have the URL but you should be able to do a search with this info.
Paying off her debts? VP?
May 11th, 2008 at 9:37 pmby kos
Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:08 AM PDT
“The press” should be renamed “the puss.” They couldn’t report on anything substantial if the world depended on it. They’re going to be soft on McBush all the way through this election because that’s what their corporate owners want! Make nice with regards to McCain or stop getting your big fat paycheck! Whores!
May 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm58, 64.
1 — I visit NQUSA a lot. I disagree with their most vitriolic posts, but I think some of them are meant to be warnings of what we can expect from the Republicans if Obama is nominated. He’s a friend of 1960s terrorists. “Chicago Democrat machine politician” will become a macro key on Republican computers across the country. We can expect to hear Hussein, Osama, I mean Obama (wink, wink) on a daily basis. We’ll hear that Obama is a Muslim who attended a Madrassah and took his oath of office on a Koran. Guys like Floyd Brown will run sub rosa “vote right, vote white” campaigns. And cries of “racism” at Republican tactics won’t matter. Republicans know they won’t get the support of black voters and they don’t mind hyper-partisanship in the quest of an election victory. Republicans generally campaign dirty, and desperate, cornered Republicans are even worse. In short, Republicans will REVEL in being called racists.
2 — I support Clinton partly for the symbolism. One of the things that has me excited about both Clinton and Obama is that we are certainly going to nominate a candidate who breaks the mold — we’ll declare once and for all that the top office is not limited to white, protestant men. In the symbolic sense, it almost doesn’t matter what either Obama or Clinton does if he or she wins.
I support Clinton for her expertise on issues. In addition to a lifetime of experience and success as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the US and a member of numerous boards and commissions, she clearly demonstrated her abilities in winning her Senate seat. She moved to a state where she had not lived previously, made herself an absolute expert on New York issues, especially upstate, scared Giuliani out of the race, and absolutely demolished a Republican candidate and a state party that were at the apex of their influence. As a Senator, she’s become an expert on military issues, particularly those related to equipping individual soldiers (improved body armor, etc.) and benefits for veterans.
I support Hillary Clinton because I believe her husband was successful, that she had a role in it, and that she can build on his success while also implementing her own ideas in areas where they do not agree. Bill Clinton’s legacy is balanced budgets, paying down the national debt, more police, lower crime, a lower abortion rate while reproductive freedoms stayed legal, improved employment, diplomatic success far and away over what his predecessors had accomplished (Northern Ireland), and on and on. I’d like more of that.
Most importantly I support Clinton because I want a candidate who can win a general election. I honestly fear another Republican administration. I’d like a Democratic one that holds the GOP responsible for all the crimes and misdeeds it’s committed since 1994. I’ll settle for the GOP being out of power.
Republicans fear Bill and Hillary Clinton. As far back as 1986 Lee Atwater was trying to derail Bill Clinton’s rise to prominence because he was convinced that Bill Clinton was the one Democrat who could win the presidency. The Clintons WIN, and it doesn’t matter what obstacles they have to overcome — a media that doesn’t like them and is willing to lie about them, Republicans that loathe them, caricatures of their public personae that are so ridiculous the Clintons don’t even acknowledge them anymore. BY simply standing still, Hillary Clinton made Rick Lazio look like an ogre in 2000 and made the rest of his campaign an academic exercise because the outcome was already determined. With a single gesture and two words, she absolutely devastated Chris Matthews after the horrible way he treated her in New Hampshire. I have no doubt that if Clinton is nominated, she will destroy McCain.
Do I support triangulation? I don’t think so. What I DO recognize is that losing elections may prove ideological purity, but renders you incapable of governing. The whole idea of campaigning is to attract the largest number of supporters to your side.
For all those reasons, if Obama is nominated, I think he has a ways to go before he’ll be as formidable in a general election as Clinton would be.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:04 pmZooey Says:
Do check out “No Quarter,”
May 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
So I did. Hadn’t been there before. I found their comments on the one thread I read, to be bland, consistently in the cheer leading mode, with nothing really substantive to say. Mostly it was all about how Obama would lose to McBush badly, or that he is arrogant or inexperienced. Interestingly, I feel if you switched their names in all the comments you might have a mirror image, talking about Hillary. A very Ho-hum experience.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pmMerlin,
This is the thread I was reading. Maybe I’m overly sensitive, since I don’t tend to get that rabid.
Maybe I found the lunatic thread. :)
May 11th, 2008 at 10:34 pm65 — My first rule of politics is “Any Democrat is better than any Republican.” I think that’s especially true this year, when the Republicans are going to nominate a candidate who intends to continue the policies, plans and programs of the worst president in modern history, and one of the worst in the history of the country.
I expect to vote for the Democratic nominee, but if the Hillary bashing doesn’t stop and Obama is nominated, I’ll either write in Hillary’s name or not vote for President. There are a lot of Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain if Obama doesn’t work to swing them to his side, assuming he’s the nominee. If Obama is nominated and he writes them off, he dos so at his own peril, electorally speaking.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pmFirst Rep ~ Those are pretty good reasons. Her years in the Senate are really the only experience she can tout. Her one big opportunity as first Lady, she blew. Her ‘healthcare proposal’ was crafted without consensus from any of the interested parties and was DOA in Congress. She wasn’t privy to cabinet meetings, daily briefings or any of the actions that would give one ‘experience’.
Her success in NY might have been more solid if she hadn’t had her husband’s coattails to run on.
That said, I think she’d be an OK president, but we’d get no real change from the corporatism that infects the current political culture.
I think Obama would approach governing in a more pluralistic way. I for one am tired of the way politics has been polarized for the last eight years, and when I read ‘The Audacity of Hope’ I was heartily encouraged at Obama’s style and substance.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pm#71 ~ I don’t think Obama is stupid, do you?
May 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm71 — Stupid? Nope. Less experienced, more superficial? Maybe.
Obama has the ability to inspire, but that’s just one facet of leadership. If he’s the nominee and is going to win the general election, he needs to show that he can stay true to his own inspirational words and vision, AND that he can translate that inspiration into practical results. And he needs to show that he can do that despite the distractions of Republicans who will say and do almost anything to win, and a hostile press that he hasn’t experienced before, including the increased scrutiny and criticism that comes with that press hostility.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:02 pmI actually think Obama’s experience as a community organizer, then constitutional law professor will serve him well in the upcoming debates and campaign. He won’t get rattled and he won’t go down the low road. And there’s plenty of low road to go on McIIIrd.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pmRead This and tell me what you think…
72 — I want MORE partisanship, not less. The problem now, as I see it, is that Democrats are too willing to bargain with Republicans and give them the benefit of the doubt, yet the Dems get screwed at every turn. Just look at Hoyer and Rockefeller working so hard to give telecom companies immunity for their crimes. Just look at Pat Leahy giving in to Specter and Bush on incompetent, partisan hack federal judge appointments. Just look at Nancy Pelosi appearing in those “save the environment” ads with newt Gingrich, a man who as a matter of habit calls Democrats traitors and treasonous.
Clinton strikes me as the kind of bargainer who will not deal with someone who deals in bad faith, and who will get as good as she gives in any negotiation. Those are the lessons she learned from the health care effort in 1993.
I think Hillary Clinton has much more than her Senate time going for her, though that would be enough. She was certainly involved in the negotiations that led to peace in Northern Ireland. She took on the Chinese government’s abuse of women in her remarkable 1995 speech to the UN Women’s Rights Conference. She was listed as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country. In 1997 and 1999 she played a key role in passage of the S-CHIP program. I could go on, but you get the point.
As to her Senate race, there’s no question that she benefited from the goodwill towards Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Despite that, she still had to establish herself as a serious candidate and she had to prove her understanding of New York issues and willingness to work on them. SHE did that, and if she hadn’t, all the goodwill in the world towards her husband wouldn’t have mattered.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pmZooey Says:
Merlin,
This is the thread I was reading. Maybe I’m overly sensitive, since I don’t tend to get that rabid.
Maybe I found the lunatic thread. :)
May 11th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You did indeed unearth the lunatic thread. Talk about angry, sore losing, bitter people. Seems that the commenters are mostly women from what I could discern. “Feminists” from the lunatic fringe! (Who wouldn’t recognise a real feminist if one was standing in front of them.) Their choice of Hillary has nothing to do with anything other than that she is a woman. All men are “pigs” (or worse,) from their point of view. Unless you kiss their ass, of course. RHF would fit in perfectly over there. They were much calmer on the thread I read. Maybe after all their venting and ranting they felt calmer.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:17 pm1st Republic 14th Star Says
May 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I expect to vote for the Democratic nominee, but if the Hillary bashing doesn’t stop and Obama is nominated, I’ll either write in Hillary’s name or not vote for President. There are a lot of Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain if Obama doesn’t work to swing them to his side, assuming he’s the nominee. If Obama is nominated and he writes them off, he dos so at his own peril, electorally speaking.
_____________________________________________
First, I imagine that the “Hillary bashing” (as you put it) will cease as soon as Obama is nominated — Hillary won’t even be mentioned anymore as she will be irrelevant, just as happened to Ronald Reagan in 1976 and to Ted Kennedy in 1980. And when was the last time anybody said anything against Rudy Giuliani? Or mentioned him at all?
Second, has Obama been bashing Hillary? Or any of his staffers that he has some control over? You might find a few digs here and there, but they are mostly in response to the bashing Hillary has been doing of Obama, which has been relentless and caustic. Now if you are holding Obama responsible for comments made by people like the posters here, you’re just basically looking for an excuse to not vote for Obama.
Third, I cannot imagine Obama “writing off” anyone. But at the same time, don’t expect him to pander for votes the way McCain has. Obama has a message and he’s been pretty clear with it, even though the press chooses to focus more on flag pins and his pastor than on Obama’s message. His message is good for all Americans, but he’s not going to change it merely to buy votes.
If Hillary’s fans truly believe that McCain’s vision for our country is better than Obama’s, that’s one thing. But what do they expect Obama to do to suck up to them for their votes? Change his positions? He already matches Hillary on most issues, and they differ only by small degrees (whereas they BOTH differ from McCain by very LARGE degrees). Start downing shots and swigging beer? Bleach his skin? Wear a flag pin? I’ve never even seen Hillary with a flag pin.
Obama will do everything he can to unite the Democrats, and if you’d been paying attention to his speeches instead of swallowing the rhetoric you get from the Clinton campaign, you’d know that he’s not gloating or trashing. To write off Hillary’s supporters would be politically stupid, but Hillary has poisoned the well to the point there will be some people whose hatred for Obama will never be appeased, thanks to her campaign.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pmyeah, they’ll scrutinize him come November 12, 2008 with feel-good stories meant to obscure the scandals that might result from his administration.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:46 pm78 — It’s rhetoric like that which will drive people like me AWAY from Obama. If that’s your intent, mission accomplished.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:53 pm1st Republic 14th Star,
You are such a whiny cry-baby. MisMolly’s reply was very thoughtful. If you cannot handle a candid exchange and/or a few facts, you better take your whiny little self somewhere else.
Or as my wife would put it: If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:04 ammisshusseinmolly
May 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Well said, my friend.
1st Republic 14th Star Says:
78 — It’s rhetoric like that which will drive people like me AWAY from Obama. If that’s your intent, mission accomplished.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Would you mind explaining what it is precisely that you found so objectionable about her comments? I thought she said what she did quite clearly and quite eloquently. I am a White male New Yorker with some college experience, and according to Sen Clinton, I should be solidly in her camp. Well, guess what, I am not. And while I would have been both proud and happy to vote for either a woman or an African American for president, I would not be all that proud to vote for Sen Clinton, and it’s because of the campaign she has run and her refusal to accept, and publicly acknowledge, the reality that the only way she can get her party’s nomination is if the superdelegates ignore the clear will of the people and the rules of the Democratic Party. Her arguments have been disengenuous and not at all fact-based.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:13 amWill the Hillary apologist please give the Rev Wright thing a rest, what he said doesn’t compare to these quotes?
“I am sorry to have to say that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.”
“And you know what, a nation that put as many Japanese in a concentration camp as they did in the ’40s … will put black people in a concentration camp. And I’m not interested in being in any concentration camp. I been on the reservation too long now.”
America “was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race.”
And who said these “horrible” quotes. No, not Rev Wright. It was Martin Luther King, Jr. You know, they guy we have a national holiday for, the person everyone thinks is an American hero.
So if you really have a problem with what Wright said, I have a sneaking feeling you may have supported McLame’s opposition to the MLK holiday and really are a concern troll.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:20 amSome gratitude McCain is showing here. I predict that some in the press will now turn on him for turning on them. That would only be human nature.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:27 amGeebus, and I thought Obama supporters were supposed to be the whine and cheeze crowd. Monterey Jack with your Merlot, 1st Republic?
May 12th, 2008 at 12:38 amI’ve encountered Hillary supporters who are passionate and fair-minded and committed to progressive ideals.
Then there are Hillary supporters like RHF and our friend 14th star here, who sound like right-wing psy-ops plants sent here to disrupt things on the Left.
Anyone who would be “driven away” from a good presidential candidate by the rhetoric of that candidate’s supporters (rather than the rhetoric and campaign of the candidate himself) doesn’t deserve to have his vote counted.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:45 am“Waaah!! MissMolly is a big bad meanie! She won’t say Hillary is God’s gift to all of us! Waaah!!”
May 12th, 2008 at 12:53 am~1st Republic
Zooey said:
If you know the correct story, please tell us about it.
I am no fan of McCain, but he was not the cause of the Forrestal accident.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:07 amI was in the Navy (Naval aviation) from 74-79 and the films
of the Forrestal accident were used for safety training.
They clearly showed that what happened was a “huffer” (a small jet engine used to start jets) was placed with it’s
exhaust on the nose of a “dumb bomb” which exploded and started a chain reaction of explosions. As for the “wet start”
thing? The start up sequence for a jet is rotation then igniters then fuel and is not in the pilots control.
Thank you, lurker. I appreciate the information. :)
May 12th, 2008 at 1:50 amClinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…
May 12th, 2008 at 1:56 amWho needs campaign contributions when you have the MSM singing your praises 24/7?
May 12th, 2008 at 3:26 amralph the wonder llama Says:
I’ve encountered Hillary supporters who are passionate and fair-minded and committed to progressive ideals.
Then there are Hillary supporters like RHF and our friend 14th star here, who sound like right-wing psy-ops plants sent here to disrupt things on the Left.
Anyone who would be “driven away” from a good presidential candidate by the rhetoric of that candidate’s supporters (rather than the rhetoric and campaign of the candidate himself) doesn’t deserve to have his vote counted.
Oh, please, that’s a crock of sh*t and nothing more than projection from the Hopium Head lunatic fringe Obama supporter.
I said early and often that if I was stuck with Obama I’d vote for him, yet Zooey and the rest of the Hopium freaks claim Hillary is the worst thing around! What has been the thing I accuse Obama most of? Being a dishonest (typical) politician - how SHOCKING!!! How RADICAL!!
The RHETORIC of YOU FREAKS is enough to drive ANY SANE PERSON away from Obama, in the same way that it should have driven people away from Stalin and Hitler… You behave like CULT WORSHIPERS, you IGNORANT POS…
And for the record, Obama’s own biography has him stating the reason he joined Rev. Wright’s church, was that when he met him the first time he was trashing white people for ruining the needy world. Obama does fine at driving away THINKING people all on his own… The supporters just CONFIRM his unsuitability as our candidate..
For the record, 300k more Democrats have voted for Hillary than Obama (not counting the 2 states in dispute). In book, it’s clear she’s the candidate MOST VOTING democrats want. You freak Obamaheads can just shove your heads up your *ss*s and ask yourself why you’ve gone out of your way to drive away hillary supporters - because you’re going to need us in November you dum bass morons!
May 12th, 2008 at 3:32 amMerlin Says:
Zooey Says:
Merlin,
This is the thread I was reading. Maybe I’m overly sensitive, since I don’t tend to get that rabid.
Maybe I found the lunatic thread. :)
May 11th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
You did indeed unearth the lunatic thread. Talk about angry, sore losing, bitter people. Seems that the commenters are mostly women from what I could discern. “Feminists” from the lunatic fringe! (Who wouldn’t recognise a real feminist if one was standing in front of them.) Their choice of Hillary has nothing to do with anything other than that she is a woman. All men are “pigs” (or worse,) from their point of view. Unless you kiss their ass, of course. RHF would fit in perfectly over there. They were much calmer on the thread I read. Maybe after all their venting and ranting they felt calmer.
ROTFL, HYSTERICAL PROJECTION!!
Sorry, you ignorant MORON, but I chose Hillary after Edwards left the race because she’s the most experience and has the most progressive candidate. Obama is such an idiot, he can’t figure out his healthcare program is NOT universal, even though it doesn’t ensure all Americans are covered!
As for your TARDED - MOSTLY WOMEN - comment, women are some of the WORST HYSTERICALLY HILLARY HATERS who go INSANE - like ZOOEY, who was SO BLASTED INSANE she accused Hillary of being a member of THE FAMILY - which is an ALL MALE ORGANIZATION!!! ROTFL, what a stupid old self loathing broad! The most ironic thing is Zooey hating Hillary for being a strong women, when she’s a vicious c**t!! ROTFL!!
May 12th, 2008 at 3:40 am>Republicans know they won’t get
>the support of black voters
so they dont care how many of them vote, right? is
that what you’re saying? sure the republicans are going to play the racist card but if they overplay it, it will
tick off people who dont normally go to the polls but will
to spite the racists.
A) hilary is done. by no metric will she be able to win the nomination. time to get over it and stop wasting your time and ours making longingly long posts about this strange pipe dream you have.
b) if by some bizarre chance the supers usurp the will of the majority and pick hillary, what do you think is going to happen to the substantial youth and black vote thats been told that their vote doesnt matter? what will happen is that they arent going to show up….. i remind you that in elections, it DOES matter how many of your side actually have the enthusiasm to wait in line to vote for you..
i try to hold my fire against fellow lefties but you people
May 12th, 2008 at 5:41 amneed to walk it off/get over it/however else you cope with the reality that hilary will not be the president now, or, if obama looses, ever… whether its true or not, at this point, if obama looses the general election, a large part of the dem voting block is going to blame hilary and her divise, scorched earth campaign for the loss..
Hey rhf,
Dropping in for another round of hit-and-run posts? Do us a favor and stop acting as a spokesperson for current Hillary supporters. You simply don’t meet the qualifications.
And we’d like you to shed the progressive label, because you have demonstrated the narrow thinking and sexist vitriol that Republicans practice. Therefore, you hate facts.
It’s not about Hillary suppporters when I say that you need to leave this board and stop identifying yourself as progressive. You are a maniac in need of help and we know that your vitriol against against Obama makes it impossible for us to believe that you’ll vote for him this fall.
I can find no other reason, other than TP’s apparent support for Hillary, why you are able to continue posting here. Why, then, would TP allow a lunatic to vouch for their candidate?
May 12th, 2008 at 6:33 amHave I already remarked that the site admin has to b informed urgently about a new version of–WORDPRESS?–
May 12th, 2008 at 7:29 amVenezuelas Chavez calls Germanys Merkel political grand daughter of Adolf Hitler
republicans hate facts Says
May 12th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Spoken like a true republican, how IRONIC, yet you and your OBAMA HEAD MORON FRIENDS say I’M RADICAL because I RESPOND to your TRASHING? ROTFL, you’re as dumb as a ROVE ROBOT you IGNORANT MORON!
And just to get your facts straight you ignorant c**t, for whatever reason you HATE STRONG WOMEN, Hillary has received HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS even without FL/MI. Obama and ROVIAN POS CULTISTS like you, really turn of rational, sane, koolaid free thinking people. And the chance that your RHETORIC and INSANITY will STOP when Hillary leaves is UNLIKELY! You’re as TASTELESS, CRUDE and UNACCEPTABLE as you all BELIEVE me to be - the IRONY is HYSTERICAL!!!
________________________________________________
Apparently you were posting drunk in the wee hours of the morning. That’s no excuse.
Normally, I would refute your points one at a time. I would at least respect your post, even if I disagree with it. However, when you call me a c**t, that crosses the line. I have done nothing to deserve that label.
All you deserve is a flag with a request that all your posts be deleted and you be banned. Which I have done.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:31 amThe unconstrained votes of some 800 top Democratic Party officials, known as Super Delegates, now matter even more following the Pennsylvania Primary, which continued to leave both Presidential candidates short of the 2,024 primary-pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Those believing these Party insiders (who include governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers) should be more accountable to rank-and-file Democrats, can now have their voices heard through http://www.LobbyDelegates.com. This one-stop portal is the first and only one empowering grassroots Democrats to directly communicate with their state’s Super Delegates – via email, fax or postal letters.
LobbyDelegates.com maintains lists of Super Delegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or are still uncommitted. Users can, with one click, target all uncommitted Super Delegates and urge them to publicly endorse a certain candidate, or remain uncommitted. Users can similarly lobby Super Delegates to keep an existing commitment, or switch to the other candidate.
Although Sen. Obama leads with 1,490 pledged delegates to 1,336 for Sen. Clinton, neither would attain 2,024 even if one or the other won two-thirds of the remaining primary delegates. While Clinton leads among Super Delegates, 259 to 235, Obama has narrowed this gap steadily over the past six weeks. Over 300 Super Delegates remain uncommitted.
The LobbyDelegates.com website is strictly independent, and is not aligned with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, whose similar civic engagement website, http://www.StateDemocracy.com, is dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop by connecting citizens and lawmakers.
Thousands have visited LobbyDelegates.com since it was launched on April 3. Since then, the website has been upgraded by adding a blog, the ability to invite friends, and free email delivery.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:41 amNever underestimate the bribery power of a barbecue.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:29 amMarie Says:
Never underestimate the bribery power of a barbecue.
Fire up the Coleman! We’ll soon have those Gitmo detainees crawling over one another to tell us what they know! But no KC style - that stuff’s so crappy, it might be considered cruel and unusual treatment…
May 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am80, 81, 82, 85, 87, 92, 93:
Whining? Hardly. More like making a plea for reasoned, constructive arguments.
Not progressive? A PSYOP plant? A secret McCain supporter? Please! I’ve been involved in Democratic politics in one way or another since I was in high school. Among other things, I served as Treasurer of my state’s Democratic party. I’ve made clear that I’m NOT voting for McCain under any circumstances.
I’ll say again that if Obama is nominated, I’m inclined to support him. My point all along has been that if he IS nominated, Obama will have to work to win the support of Clinton’s backers. For that matter, if Clinton is nominated, she’ll have to work to attract Obama supporters to her standard. Name calling and marginalizing do NOTHING to build the broad coalition we Democrats will need if we’re going to overcome the advantages McCain will have, most notably a unified (if demoralized) Republican party and a friendly press corps.
If Obama is nominated and his most hardcore supporters want to drive away those of us who backed Clinton (and vice versa), it plays right into the strategy of the GOP, which will attempt to make McCain appear as a sensible moderate.
Supporters of both Obama and Clinton need to stay respectful of each other now and be prepared to work for whichever one is the nominee so that we ensure a Democratic victory for President in what should be a very good year for Democratic candidates everywhere.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:40 amMissmolly,
I do feel the need to apologize, even as a random poster, for ‘republicans hate facts’ using that word on you. The tremendous respect you’ve shown toward other posters highlights the fact that rules around here need enforcement. There is no place for that kind of harassment.
I am sending a direct email to Faiz, even if others have done so. RHF has clearly has crossed the line and needs have his posting privileges revoked and his posts deleted, as you’ve mentioned.
Enough is enough.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Flinging around c*** and singling out the women on this board isn’t exactly progressive. Unfortunately, there are people who lean to the left who can’t put our ideology
into practice. They can’t bring themselves to change and simply want to hang out with the cool kids. RHF is one of them, and he needs to be weeded out.
I think you’re fine here as a new poster, my opinion. Welcome to you.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:50 amHmmm, using the c word in public… maybe RHF is really McCain himself?
May 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pmHow about a little rolling on the floor clutching broken teeth?
May 12th, 2008 at 9:22 pm