home

Obamaland

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:14:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris "Tweety" Matthews, speaking from the ObamaLand that is the Obama News Network, NBC, is talking about Hillary Clinton living in "HillaryLand." It is one of the more amazing "news" broadcasts one has ever seen.

Forget for a moment that indeed Hillary Clinton has at best a very long shot to win the nomination. This is true imo. But is that REALLY the only story of the night? (In ObamaLand, Tweety is predicting a "surprisingly close" Kentucky result.) Remember this is supposed to be a NEWS network. Not a propaganda arm for Barack Obama. [More...]

The problem that has not passed the lips of anyone on the Obama News Network - the "presumptive nominee" lost by 40 points in a primary. Has this EVER happened? How could it have happened? What does it mean? Nothing to question or concern yourself with this result according to the Obama News Network. What a "performance." Certainly this is not a news network.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Hillary Clinton's Victory Speech | Childers Wins MS-01 Race >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obamaland | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No More MSNBC (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    That's why I watched Greta tonight.  Her opening line: "She clobbered him."

    As pointed out in the below thread (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:07 PM EST
    Chris Matthews also denied ever calling for HRC to drop out, insisting to Terry McAuliffe that he wants this to go all the way to the convention etc. because it's 'exciting'. Apparently they drink a lot of Kool-Aid in Obamaland... do they really think we can't remember anything from one minute to the next.

    Surprisingly a few people at CNN were able to process the facts you were talking about, BTD. It was a refreshing surprise.

    I'm sorry to be so dense... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST
    but, really, how in the world is the MSM not asking the question....why is he still losing at this stage in the primary?  If he is the presumptive nominee, how can he lose like this - across all demo groups.

    I want an answer.  

    P.S.  I love the new ad that the woman's PAC is going to run for HRC.  She speaks for us!

    James Clyburn was coaching a willing (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:29 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann tonight explaining that Clinton's win was something akin to an hommage to the good things the Clintons have done for the people of West Virginia.  Olbermann's follow up question was, "So we shouldn't read this as a vote against Obama?"  Clyburn said no of course and went on to talk about what a great public servant Clinton is and how happy he was to see her have such a wonderful show of support from voters she has helped.

    This was what is known as the spinners buying into their own spin which is a major reason why I continue to be very worried about the Dems' prospects in November.

    Parent

    He's really trying to thread (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    that needle after he came out with all those comments he had to walk back.

    Parent
    Stopped watching them (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    many months ago.

    Don't know what they say and I sure as heck don't care.  I sent them one email to tell them why.

    The once glorious peacock is now just a big pr***.

    McCain is pulling +50 margins ... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:59 PM EST
    ... in his residual contests, and that's considered a bad sign.

    McCain will be over 70% tonight (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    and Chris "Creative Class" Bowers thinks that shows a problem for him.  Obama  <crickets> :-)


    Parent
    Bowers is full of crap (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    John Kerry won several ending primaries with ~75% of the vote in 2004, including Pennsylvania, which he then went on to win.

    Obama's crippling defeat in WV today is far beyond that.

    Parent

    You couldn't be more right (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:46 PM EST
    OpenLeft has been scarily delusional lately.  That whole thing of Stollers about Obama taking over made him sound like "Dear Leader" or something.  Weird.


    Parent
    I read that too and felt creepy (none / 0) (#102)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM EST
    It was bizarre that he thought it was all good!??

    Parent
    How is Rosenberg holding up there? (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Scary isn't it? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    Our presumptive nominee got his head handed to him in a state we should win in November. How does he get those voters to come with him?

    Is it time "Hard Hat Unity Pony?" Fearless pinto of politics, bringer of betterment to the masses, someone who isn't willing to destroy the Democratic party because Hillary is Hillary?

    Parent

    Compared to Tweety (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:37 PM EST
    Wolf and John King were brilliant on CNN.  Wolf kept asking if anyone had ever seen anything like this before and what did it say about Obama's candidacy.  John King said he didn't recall anything like this.

    For just a moment, Wolf looked like he wanted to say what I was thinking, that this is horrible for the general election.  God I want Hillary to somehow pull this thing out.

    And Campbell Brown was in Donna's (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    face at least twice, calling her on stuff.  

    Parent
    I was shocked by Brown (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    She's been sassy before, but never like this.  I think they're seeing Donna's true colors after last Tuesday's meltdown.

    But, at least Blitzer asked the question, because I think it's a very important one.  This late in the contest, you cannot discount Obama's huge and crushing loss tonight.  I don't know about the 40% (who knows where this will end up) but we also need to count "protest votes" for Edwards.

    This is just so shocking, and I think more folks are going to be asking questions.  It'll be interesting to see what the fundraising looks like overnight.  Though some want to believe people only vote with their minds, they also vote with their hearts.  Heck, everyone does everything with a tad bit of emotion (which explains these idiotic pundits who can't even report without shading it for their side).  I hate to sound like Scarlet O'Hara here, but tomorrow is another day.

    Parent

    Has a candidate ever lost ALL counties (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    in a state's primary?  It looks like that is how it's going to go in WV.  Absolutely amazing. . . .

    And before anyone raises racism again, please note the point made by the Fox analyst about Appalachian voters -- that those in the same region but next door in Virginia voted strongly for Doug Wilder, first AA governor of that state.  As the analyst said, these are voters who can and do vote for AAs, just not this AA, Obama.

    The analyst had a good term for these voters, getting away from demographics such as race:  They're cultural conservatives but economic populists.  And Obama is neither.

    And, btw, from the WVers I know, the anti-Washington message from Obama wouldn't work.  To them, Washington is their beloved and powerful Robert Byrd -- and thus Washington has been good to them.

    Parent

    Wolfie is a good guy (none / 0) (#89)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    and he's interviewing Hillary tomorrow.
    Think it's the Situation Room.  Ck local listings.

    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    6pm EST tomorrow.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    people who listen to Matthews and think he "knows" something are being led down the primrose path to electoral defeat. The fact that pundits are papering over Obama's likely loss in a general election due to his demographic liabilities are doing him no favors.

    Wolf Blitzer on CNN did bring it up. He said has a "presumptive nominee" ever been defeated by 40 pts in a primary? No one seemed to know and I would consider it unlikely.

    Perhaps Matthews is embarrassed to admit that he's been wrong time and again. Heck, all these stupid media people have been wrong time and again. I'd rather have a candidate who fought these people than one that was dependent upon them. They are so out of touch with what's going on in this country that it's pathetic.

    Apparently being liked by the media hasn't really been able to help Obama that much. If you have a "presumptive nominee" and a challenger that the media has all but declared done win by 40 pts. then they obviously don't have much influence over the electorate.

    By all accounts Chris Matthews is actually (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    fairly astute, and at the least gives a stream of conciseness analysis (which gets him into trouble from time to time)...Mathews isn't what bugs me on MSNBC, it is KO, Gregory, and others who seem to be half as smart as they want everyone to think they are...with KO and the "ponzi" scheme remark tonight, I mean really...either he 1) doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is 2) knows what it is but is too much of a hack to give "just the facts" and adhere to some form of journalistic responsibility or 3) knows what it is, and made the remark specifically to mislead his viewers and assumes that they are all rubes he can fool...basically he's either incompetent or dishonest...

    Parent
    they are talking much more openly (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST
    on fox about the clinton democrats walking because of obama. of coure the guy from politico pretended that wasn't so. i started yelling at the tv again. i guess my neighbors wonder who it is i am fighting with all the time.

    Parent
    Did they (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    mention that we feel like Obama is being shoved down our throats?

    Parent
    no, but they are coming closer to it right now (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    than any other network.

    Parent
    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    at this point, I think that this primary has turned into a rebellion AGAINST the media.  This is a very dangerous place for the media; already there are massive layoffs in newsrooms all over the country.

    This was their chance to prove their worth.  This was their chance to show what they can do that the party pundits and bloggers can't.  They blew it, and there's no reason their corporate masters (who are probably Republicans), won't, as Faye Dunaway said so memorably in "Network," "sack the f***ing lot of them" after the elections.

    Parent

    The Emperor Has No Clothes (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:27 PM EST
    this is what nobody wants to say - not the media, not many of the Super Delegates.

    Obama has a giant general election problem. Pointing to Colorado and Virginia isn't going to solve it.  

    But, hey, let's just ignore it and hope it all works out in November.  

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    what? I wonder if the party elders would sit him down and say "We can nominate you but it's obvious that you can't win the general election." What do you think Obama would say? I would think that he wouldn't care. He's in such a bubble that he wouldn't realize that all is lost until the polls showed him losing the day before the election.

    Parent
    The party elders would have to (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:18 PM EST
    include all the Super Ds, including those who have publicly committed to Obama as nominee.  Of course, then his money supply wouldn't be flowing their way, so would they do it?  Who knows.  Depends how safe their districts are I guess.

    Parent
    People have a lot of reasons for (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    objecting to the super delegate system having to do with how "un-democratic" they are.  I have a problem with them because they won't have the guts to make the kind of tough decision that they were empowered to make.

    Parent
    The Golden Rule (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    The DNC has been bought -- Mark Halperin in Time blog reported that the DNC has set up some kickback scheme with the Obama campaign.

    They want the money and they want his rolodex (whether the money will continue to roll in is another question).  

    The DNC/SDs are no longer free people. It's the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

    Parent

    How good (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    is it going to be if all that money can't win an election? It's pretty obvious now that there's no amount of money that will make Obama electable.

    And how many are going to be disappointed when Obama loses and not want to donate money anymore?

    Parent

    Can't win the presidency (none / 0) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    but who says they care about that?  They are willing to gamble.  They want that new money base for future elections.  Control the money and the donor lists and you control the party and who gets elected.  The piece in which it was reported that the Obama camp was restricting supporter donations to other entities such a moveon (get under the bus) is just more of the same..... money and control.  It makes no difference to their work or their lives if they don't win the presidency.

    Parent
    All they'll get from this Golden Goose is goosed (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    Ex rectum: Party coffers aren't going to see much from the Obama Tour, which is a candidacy version of the storied Pentagon self-sucking ice cream cone.

    His young new Marshallow Peeps are personality-cult oriented more than party oriented. Whether they'll be as invested in going after McCain (as they were involved in the story arc of Bad Monster Lady) is completely up in the air.

    (TV Non Sequitur: OMFG, his speech was awful and his fans look sleepy; the fresh footage is bad -- clips of BO being followed by scrums look like he's hiding and dodging. That's up against HRC's lively speech and chatting with voters. Positive points about Obama are coming from surrogates and aren't matching his visuals. It's widening the credibility gap -- why can't he close? are we there yet? what's with all the math? -- while Clinton's footage gibes with her messengers' statements about listening to the voters, making sure she gets out there and earns every vote.)

    Clinton has made headway in ways that also bode well for the general, laying tracks that will make it easier for her to revisit efficiently (or family member or supporter) in the general.)

    Obama can't expect to walk as easily in those same footsteps, not because of race, but for addressing people that TeamObama and Donna Brazile dismissed as unimportant. It'll just double his "phony politico" smell when he comes around for a general election booty call.

    Polls are fun but I'd love to see (a) who's getting the bigger bang for cash money (b) who's getting better amplification from their gains.

    (LOL ... Just catching the eve. shows and Donna Brazile's in one foul mood.)

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:34 PM EST
    Your assumption is that we have some sort of "party elders."  Not in this party!

    Parent
    The cries of racism (none / 0) (#131)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    would be heard across the land.  She can't win this unless he drops out.  Period.  Anything other than that will have the O-bots accusing her of having stolen the election.  It would be another hideous 8 years of Clintons being attacked...except this time it would be coming from their own party.

    Sick.  It's just sick.  

    Parent

    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    The more I see of Obama and his operations the less guilty I will feel not voting for him in Nov. Does anyone want to hear "racism" screamed everytime something happehs? They won't pass my bill because they're racists. They won't come to a WH dinner because they're racists etc. Tiresome.

    It's also why he'll get a shellacking in Nov if he's the nominee.

    Parent

    i heard on one of the networks that (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    obama is trying to set up the racism argument for the general. good luck with that!

    Parent
    It's not just that he is trailing by 37 points. (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM EST
    When you consider the 7 percent that John Edwards got, 72% of the voters voted for someone else.

    Now it is true that the demographics in WV may be the worst for Obama out of all of the contests, and these were votes for other Democrats, not for Republicans. But to be the presumptive nominee and win only a quarter of the votes in a primary? Ouch.

    Ouch (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:09 PM EST
    doesn't even begin to describe the election disaster that Obama would be. Changing the map? Yeah, I guess if you liked the 1988 map.

    Parent
    WOW - great point! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    Obama is toast in November!

    Parent
    This doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:19 PM EST
    say much for that pony, does it? It also proves that when you call people racist, white trash, uninformed hill billies, they will actually fight back.

    Parent
    A lesson I thought (none / 0) (#143)
    by denise on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    the Democrats had finally learned, but apparently not.

    Parent
    Obviously not (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    The non-stop vitriol from the Obama camp and his supporters has been unbelievable. Remember, we only need latte-liberals and African American voters. No one else need apply. So they haven't.

    Parent
    Yay Edwards! :) (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    He shouldn't have registered at this point and yet he did.  What that says to me is that Obama has not only missed the boat with more conservative working class voters, but he has also failed to engage more liberal Dems.

    Parent
    Chris Matthews - VILE LIAR! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    Add Chris Matthews (well he's already in on it!) to the list of sexist haters who cannot cope with Hillary Clinton's strength & power. CM would rather see a FRAUD win than a women. Like Olbermann, he needs serious help. Do they have clinics to help those with extreme misogyny? CM needs some rehab - fast. He is losing it.

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    Let's not forget Obamaland correspondent Donna (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST
    Brazile, who is asking the candidates to make a deal now on MI/FL...a good two months after the opportunity to revote passed.  They should do a top/bottom split screen with footnotes for everything she says and her unspoken involvement in this campaign's debacles.

    But, but . . . where's the stampede . . . (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    . . . to rally 'round the fearless leader who can now take the Democratic Party to new heights?

    Heights of fantasy.

    Peaks of ecstacy.

    Mountains of ego.

    Piles of drekkish.

    Somebody needs to re-send that memo, ayeh?

    I see no difference between Fox and MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    There are only a couple of real reporters at MSNBC but they don't get much air time.  There is no genuine prime time news show, just propaganda.  At least at Fox Shepard Smith really does do a newscast, imperfect as it is.  I think we need to boycott MSNBC until they go back to being a news organization.

    Agreed... MSNBC is L-A-M-E (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    I switched to
    CNN 65%
    FOX 25%

    thats fair AND balanced.

    CNN-I must admit Jamal and Roland are really grinding on me.

    Parent

    Jamal and Roland are going... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    all out for their show pony Obama.

    Parent
    after the election there face time will be quite (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST
    limited.

    Parent
    I hardly ever watch cable TV news (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    I worked at CNN too long.  But tonight, Tweety and Keith were something to behold.  Tweety got all huffy when Terry Mac said Hillary's speech should have sent a tingle up Tweety's leg.
    Then Olbernomann said Hillary was living in some kind of alternate reality because, in Hillary's speech, she vowed to continue her campaign.  Project much, Keith?  I actually started laughing.
    Tweety and Keith will both need stiff drinks when they knock off work tonight.
    One more thing.  
    I believe Tweety was quite upset that Hillary mentioned pundits in her speech.  Tweety has never said Hillary should drop out.  He says. ;)

    He was complaining about (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    bitter Hillary supporters the other day and we blame everyone else for her loss.  He really used the bitter word. He must be getting some emails!  Anyway, after I heard that I vowed to stick with CNN and Fox.

    Parent
    loose talk on MSNBC recently (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:08 PM EST
    of Tweety running for office in PA sometime in the future.

    I'd love to see the shoe on the other foot.

    Parent

    I could only tune in... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:14 PM EST
    ...for a couple seconds at a time before my fingers reflexively hit the remote, but Matthews looked like he'd been drinking stiffly for several days already, and he needed a haircut to boot.

    Parent
    I heart Terry Mac! (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    This morning on Morning Joe, he told Mika he was pleased to be on the show with her and "Obama Campaign Chair Chris Matthews" (Chris was filling in for Joe).  It was truly a priceless moment.

    On a separate note, I think a serious Bloat Alert needs to be issued for KO.  Is it just me or does he look a bit puffier than usual?  Maybe Obama's downward spiral is causing him to turn to comfort food.  tee hee.  

    Parent

    Some expert advice (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    back off the super tight shots of Russert.
    Oh please.
    Not flattering, okay?  

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MaryGM on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    Distance shots only, please.  In fact, move him out to the parking lot.

    Seriously, is there any woman on television that looks half as bad as he does?!

    Parent

    BTD, tonight confirmed what I have long believed. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:52 PM EST
    Obama peaked in February.  He will not win the GE.  The Dem's can nominate him, but if they do, he will lose.

    What's just insane (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Raven15 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    ...is NO ONE in the media is talking about the popular vote anymore, and the  near certainty that one candidate will win the delegate race while the other will win the popular vote.  

    What passes for news these days... (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM EST
    is a complete joke.

    We used to ridicule Fox and the other side, but now MSNBC and its supporters are a mirror image.

    Olbermann and O'Reilly seem much the same, yet Olbermann is celebrated.

    This is why this country is approaching a reckoning.

    If Obama takes over the Democratic Party in his image, then it will only accelerate the downfall.

    MSNBC has done it's job of (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:50 PM EST
    carrying Obama's water for him.
    Tweety and Olbamermann have shown "Fox-like" loyalty to Mr. Obama.

    Side note: One has to wonder if MSNBC wants Obama because of their parent company GE.  GE is in the nuclear energy business and Obama is a pro-nuclear energy hawk.  Where Hillary and McCain are for making Nuclear energy part of the energy solution, Obama is making it central.

    I noticed on NPR (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    that one reporter who was talking to McCauliff tried to tie it to the race issue as being the primary differential, but McCauliff was very very quick to not even answer that and pointed out that economic issues were the number 1 item re: the exit polls.

    Tomorrow's conference call should (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    be really interesting, as LA Times and NYT are also talking about race and quoting some voters who sd. that was the deciding factor for them.

    Parent
    I wonder how many they cut out... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM EST
    who said that their concern was related to the economy...or gas prices.

    Parent
    Andrea Mitchell was beyond belief... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BluestBlue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    I haven't watched MSNBC for a while, so I was shocked at how much further they had fallen from journalistic grace, MSNBC in general and Mitchell in particular. I'm traveling and my news sources are limited, flipping thru the channels I found her and stopped.

    I think it was on Morning Joe on Monday, but the way Andrea Mitchell was spewing forth it seemed Hillary must have conceded, or died, either way, Andrea was sure she was ending her campaign. I couldn't believe the blatant bias, WAAAAY over the top! Someone should grab the video and post...

    I watched Fox News for the election results tonight. Cheering loudly for Hillary the whole time... the people in the hotel rooms surrounding me are probably wondering what is going on ;-)

    You Misunderstand General Electric's Motives (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Petey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    "Remember this is supposed to be a NEWS network. Not a propaganda arm for Barack Obama."

    You misunderstand General Electric's reasons for running their "news" operation.

    General Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC.  Their "news" operation is a loss leader run entirely to disseminate propaganda designed to increase profits for the entire company.

    In this case, General Electric's "news" operation is being run to help the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weaker in support of Social Security - Barack Obama.

    General Electric has been on a multi-decade long jihad against government social insurance programs.  This isn't personal for them, it's about their bottom line.

    Time to boycott GE (none / 0) (#164)
    by Foxx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST


    Parent
    i think you're on to something here. n/t (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:51 AM EST


    Parent
    It's simple (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:04 PM EST
    With all due respect, everyone is missing something very simple:  the Jeremiah Wright train wreck would have kicked any other candidate out of the running months ago.  If not by the party, then by the media.

    It didn't happen.  The party and the media were  too invested.

    But the REALITY remained the same.  An issue like Wright, and all the others coming up, makes a candidate unelectable.  Not because anyone is being mean, or racist, or whatever -- but because there's a lot about BHO that doesn't hang together and it's starting to show.

    The party was supposed to vet this guy.  The media was supposed to vet this guy.  Not now, a year ago.  They didn't do their job.  The voters are doing theirs.

    It's simple.

    it seems the voters in wv vetted obama. (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:21 AM EST


    Parent
    I hope ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:33 PM EST
    ... MSNBC keeps running interference for Obama against McCain.   We're gonna need all the help we can get.

    I'm sure we can count on KO but Punkinhead and Tweety are iffy.

    They won't. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    The GOP will bombard them with emails calling them the "liberal media" and they'll cave. Of course, with all the fawning over Obama they do, they'll deserve the title and the GOP will win that argument.

    Parent
    like I said below (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    I wonder if it doesn't have to do with MSNBC trying to brand themselves has "hip" "creative class" i-phone using network...trying to establish a strong demographic or possibly broadcast to a demo they already have established...

    I am not sure you can manufacture MSNBC's poor journalism and poor journalistic ethics on the scale we see currently on their station all in the effort to win or build a demo group...but I can't help but wonder if that doesn't play into it at least in terms of scheduling, anchor combos, stories, etc...

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#75)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:46 PM EST
    They can't resist the notion  of getting a piece of that new demographic (the "young voter") that Obama supposedly has charmed and is signing up in droves.  

    Parent
    What is the Biggest Story? (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    Which is bigger tonight? A huge win by Hillary in WV or the Dems adding another seat in Congress in Mississippi?

    With the Dem turnout in both states it looks to be a sweet November in clearing out the Bush followers.

    Since (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    Childers threw Obama under the bus then I guess that's the message that candidates need to do this to win if Obama is at the top of the ticket.

    Parent
    He threw him under the bus (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:59 PM EST
    then backed up and ran over him a couple of times.  He did what he had to do to win.  :-)


    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:22 PM EST
    I never saw Obama under the bus!
    I've been under the bus for weeks!

    Parent
    well, there are several buses now don't (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    you know due to demand!

    Parent
    I'm not up on this race...Childers (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    ...once supported Obama and then denied him so that he could win?

    A case history in the making for all Super Delegates.

    Parent

    Obama endorsed him (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    when asked about it, Childers denied he had been endorsed by Obama, said he'd never met him, and had no contact with the campaign.  He was very emphatic that he did not solicit and did not want Obama's endorsement.


    Parent
    Not quite "renounce AND reject," but (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:27 PM EST
    pretty close.

    Parent
    It's true. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST
    Childers put out TV ads- "Obama who? Never met the man." It was all over the Memphis market.

    Parent
    I bet he was thrlled using his $$$ for them (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Somebody should tell Jamal (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:48 PM EST
    he was using Childers as Obama's coat tail argument . . .  oops!

    Parent
    And Yet.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:23 PM EST
    All the GOP ads tried to tie Childers to Obama, and yet in a congressional district that Bush won by 24% in 2004 it goes to the Dems tonight.

    Right now, the proverbial ham sandwich would win if placed on the ballot with a (D) next to its name. It's going to be a great year to be a Dem regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. I just hope both Clinton and Obama are on the ticket.

    Parent

    Those (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:30 PM EST
    ads don't work as long as you throw the candidate under the bus like Childers did. Now, if Childers had done nothing he would have gone down to defeat.

    Parent
    i didn't know they broke up. (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    puppy love is so hard!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST


    Parent
    It's More BushBeGone (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:31 PM EST
    In 2006 the GOP won this congressional district 66%-34%. Tonight the Dems win 53-47. That's a swing of enormous proportions. There isn't enough money for the GOP to hold onto seats in November.

    The Dems will continue to pick up seats with Clinton at the top of the ticket, or with Obama at the top of the ticket. In today's Bushbegone environment, it just isn't going to matter.

    Pull for Clinton because you like her more (which is how I lean), but Obama on the ticket isn't going to hurt either.

    Parent

    After (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:08:32 PM EST
    tonight's WV results I'm not so sure about having Obama on the top of the ticket. If he's having a problem with primary voters then we've got a problem.

    Of course, a lot of these voters could split tickets too. McCain for President but a dem on the lower ballot.

    Parent

    the night went great for Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    I think she got pretty good coverage and the results from West Virginia got out there to the public.  I think the story was as big as Clinton could have hoped.

    Parent
    Turnout in WVA? (none / 0) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    Does anyone have any facts on turnout?

    Parent
    Only the number of votes so far. (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    total number of votes for Dem candidates, 242,624 with 73% precincts reporting.

    Parent
    I really don't get MSNBC (none / 0) (#11)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    and their infatuation...I wonder if it has to do with branding and viewer demographics...I know I stopped watching them, and probably won't ever again because of their horrible coverage...but I just don't get it...it is complete propaganda, and they are advocating a candidate that by all accounts treats the press fairly poorly...

    They really, really want McCain (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    to run against Obama.

    All else is noise.

    Parent

    Egh I don't know if I buy that (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    their coverage of the Democratic primary was poor well before McCain was the apparent nominee...when the news networks were running his campaign's obituaries Russert was tag teaming with Obama, Edwards, and other candidates to take HRC down in the debates...

    I don't think this is their wanting McCain vs. Obama, so much as this is their wanting to "show the Clintons to the door"

    Parent

    They are themselves Obama's demographic (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    affluent white more or less liberals.  Olbermann, Tweety and Shuster are insecure men with small, um, fingers who are frightened by strong women.

    In addition, with Olbermann, it's calculated for ratings, since that younger crowd is what advertisers crave.  Tweety actually has a bit more integrity.

    But the really main problem is that Obama is just a better, more exciting story for them than Hillary, who is old news in terms of their limited horizon.

    Parent

    It isn't exclusive (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    to MSNBC.

    You yourself have said that Obama is a media darling.

    Such is the state of our 4th estate

    media darling gets you 28% tonight (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    Media Teflon gets Hillary electability.

    Parent
    I like that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Make that 26% (as of 11:41 EST) (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD -- How about this for a Unity Ticket? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    Obama-Clinton, with Bill promoted as Sec. of State? Bill, couldn't do it in a Hillary administration, but why not in an Obama administration? He would be perfect. Plus, having HIM inderectly on the ticket as well would be a brand name that many voters such as we saw tonight in WV COULD get behind.

    Did you not see the results tonight? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    The ticket has to be Clinton-Obama if winning in November is the actual goal.  But as a tepid McCain supporter, I almost don't care anymore.  West Virginia results tonight did renew my hopes for Hillary.  They show clear buyer's remorse against Obama.

    Parent
    Ya Right (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    Obama calls Clinton a racist, tries to erase his legacy and he would want to be the secy of state for this guy why?

    Seriously, that is insane.

    Parent

    If Obama is the nominee, Bill (none / 0) (#68)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM EST
    doesn't want to go out this way. He would take it in a heartbeat. Obama needs Bill more than he needs Hillary.

    Parent
    Oh, I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    I think Hillary is just as-if not more-important than Bill now.  The millions of women who turned out to vote weren't voting on the Clinton brand; they were voting for Hillary.

    Parent
    That's true... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    I meant more of the known Clinton brand and assurance of experience that Bill Clinton could provide. But, you're right, many women who perhaps would stay home or vote for McCain would vote for Obama if Hillary was on the ticket.

    Parent
    Why would Hillary want someone (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    on her ticket that has spent the past year insulting her at every turn? Who has allowed his supporters to call her the nastiest names you can call a woman? Who doesn't have the experience to do the damn job? Whose wife is a definite detriment to her campaign? Who will probably spend the entire administration running for the next election? And who has some really bad baggage that will for sure be used against him, and her, in the GE?? I can't think of a single reason for her to ask Obama to be VP. He would not be an asset to any campaign. And I can't see either Obama or Michelle being enthusiastic about campaigning for Hillary. Can you?

    Oh, you meant Hillary as VP? Well, see above. Same thing applies. Why damage herself by hooking up with a divisive loser?

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#144)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah No (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    I worked on Clinton's campaign. There is zero chance he is going to do sh$t for Barack Obama. He has a long memory and he will never forgive. Ever.

    He will make public declarations in support of the democratic nominee but he will be laughing his ass off when Obama goes down in a electoral landslide loss.

    Bill Clinton doesn't need Barack Obama for anything.

    Parent

    Seriously, I don;t think the last 2 term (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    democratic president since FDR is worried about going out any way.  I expect Obama to lose, if he's the nominee, so he might worry about going out that way.


    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST
    I think a big part of Hillary's candidacy, for Bill, was to vindicate himself in the eyes of history for his impeachment. If the history is that he was impeached, but nine years later his wife was elected president, it can be easily remembered as what it was: a political stunt by right wing partisans.

    Parent
    Or Maybe (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:35 PM EST
    He loves his wife and thinks she is the best candidate.

    Parent
    That's obviously the case! (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, of course, (none / 0) (#115)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST
    that is also a part of it. Look, I support Hillary and pray that she can still pull it off. All I'm saying is that if she doesn't, the Clinton brand would be beneficial to Obama... and that people need to remember that Bill is still a popular figure to the general electorate.

    Parent
    Barack Obama Has Trashed the Brand (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    What part of that don't you get? What do Hillary or Bill owe him? Seriously, would you jump on the unity pony if you were called a racist, your 8 year presidency was completely trashed and the policies that you believe strongly in are either ignored or rejected?

    They shouldn't have to jump on the unity pony any more than I do.

    He made his mess. It isn't up to the Clinton's to clean it up. Or that matter, other Democratic voters.

    It's called personal responsibility.

    Parent

    Barack Obama Has Trashed the Brand (none / 0) (#120)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:36 PM EST
    What part of that don't you get? What do Hillary or Bill owe him? Seriously, would you jump on the unity pony if you were called a racist, your 8 year presidency was completely trashed and the policies that you believe strongly in are either ignored or rejected?

    They shouldn't have to jump on the unity pony any more than I do.

    He made his mess. It isn't up to the Clinton's to clean it up. Or for that matter, other Democratic voters.

    It's called personal responsibility.

    Parent

    Obama has his own brand (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:42 PM EST
    He's made that very clear and it has nothing to do with the past and old politics . . . or so he says.

    Parent
    Obama has his own brand (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    He's made that very clear and it has nothing to do with the past and old politics . . . or so he says.

    Parent
    Nah . . . . . (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    he's just a damned good actor  ;)

    I think his Global charity and all the work he's doing now will keep him very happy and his good name in place for a long time to come.

    He's really cute when he's out there promoting his wife though :) The three of them are very nice to watch together  :)

    Parent

    Ah, NO! How about this for a (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:12 PM EST
    "Unity" ticket...Clinton/Clark!

    And Obama can stay in the Senate and get an education before he tries to run again.

    Parent

    I've actually come around to Clinton/Edwards.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
    if the Democrats wake up in time to avoid electoral disaster #8 in the last 10 General elections...my suspicion is that this primary season is going all the way to the convention. I expect chaos to ensue, of course. I think at the end of the day, Hillary might win the nomination on the second ballot or even first. Who knows?

    But if FL/MI delegates comes in, anything can happen. My current theory is that if Hillary gets the nomination after all this and Obama refuse the VP spot, Hillary will probably/must choose Edwards because at that point in time it will be like 8 weeks before the GE and she will not have the time to introduce a brand new player. They'd have to hit the campaign trail pretty hard, and Edwards is great campaigner and is already a known figure.

    The idea that it might actually go to the convention, as the "next new exciting thing" for the media to pounce on might actually end benefitting Hillary. Who knows...it would be interesting tho.

    Parent

    LA Times on line points out (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:41 PM EST
    Dem. nominees in the past have lost primary elections in bunches at the end of the primary run.  

    By 40 points? (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST


    Parent
    come on BTD, they have to try... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    the spin is getting wobbly, like a top that hit a crack on the floor.

    Parent
    Just numbers of state, not spreads. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    California was one though.

    Parent
    BTW the name sof those nominees were (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:10 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

    Parent
    ouch (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:58 PM EST


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#67)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    to quote Jim Carrey from "Dumb and Dumber" ...

    "So you're saying there's a chance..."

    (Carter won!)

    Parent

    Not in 1980 (n/t) (none / 0) (#97)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Not in 1980, unfortunately (none / 0) (#99)
    by akaEloise on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:26 PM EST


    Parent
    well Jim Carrey didn't get the girl either (none / 0) (#103)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST
    doh!

    Parent
    And as an aside... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    Both Carter and Mondale faced fierce opposition all the way to the convention. Mondale, in fact, didn't have the super delegate votes to clinche the nomination until just before the convention.

    Parent
    Doh! (none / 0) (#78)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Bobby Kennedy lost Oregon a week (none / 0) (#101)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    before the CA primary, right?  But not any 40 points.

    Parent
    Good thing McCain is no Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#157)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Here is the paragraph: (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:27 PM EST
    It is not unusual for a candidate to lose contests even when their nomination appears inevitable. Jimmy Carter lost a batch of late-voting states in 1976 but still won the Democratic nomination and the White House. In 1984, Gary Hart won four of six contests -- including California -- on the last day of balloting, but still lost the Democratic nomination to Walter Mondale.


    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:42 PM EST
    some of our worst candidates.

    Parent
    I was just trying to cheer up BTD. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST


    Parent
    we should all be happy with the results (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:29 PM EST
    Clinton can still be our nominee and Obama's electability problems are being exposed, thus saving us from a possible certain defeat in November.  I see it all as a good development.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#37)
    by cannondaddy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    I've heard it mentioned several times. Are you sure you have the sound on?

    On NBC? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    Are you sure you were not watching CNN?

    PAt Buchanan of course says it but no one else.

    Parent

    they let Buchanan say it because... (none / 0) (#57)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:16 PM EST
    it lets their Obama-loving viewers to discount what he says as a typical white bigot Republican, who "of course" doesn't get what hope is all about.

    Parent
    I do not like KO ... he is a goof.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:18 PM EST
    as my now retired father who is also a union Electrician thinks that MSNBC is the "sissy channel"... lol.

    My grandfather was also a union electrician.... and non of us ever voted Republican .......yet. So much for the "Reagan" democrats.

    Has this EVER happened? (none / 0) (#55)
    by bird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    "lost by 40 points in a primary. Has this EVER happened? "

    What about Michigan?  I thought that counted.

    the question refers to this late in the campaign (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:35 PM EST
    a so-called presumptive nominee who is about to declare himself the victor gets trounced and utterly rejected by a swing state despite his opponent getting some of the worst media coverage in history.

    Parent
    Now who was that Dem. primary candidate (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    who lost IA caucuses but won the nomination?

    Clinton? (none / 0) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:03 PM EST


    Parent
    can you give us a hint? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually, I can't remember, but (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    I bet BTD does.  I thought it only happened once.  

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#83)
    by Shawn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    McGovern, Carter '76 (if you want to be technical).

    Parent
    Obama actually at 27% (none / 0) (#65)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:34 PM EST
    Network geeks don't know how to round 27.45 to a whole %.

    And down to a solid 27.03%! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM EST


    Parent
    OK, just pulled up to 27.52% :-) (none / 0) (#81)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Wouldn't you think the visual media folks (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:55 PM EST
    would want this to go to the convention?  Kind of a slow TV time in Aug.  Lots of excitement.

    conventions are boring... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    and they take up a lot of air time that would normally get a lot more revenue...I think that the conventions have to be covered for free by the majors.

    Parent
    I thought McAuliffe sounded like he (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    was at the convention already.  Reeling off the names of the great states.

    Parent
    missed that... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:48 PM EST
    heard enough to know that it was quite a night...then went to tape (soothing was what I needed after beating myself at pool tonight...more playoffs).

    Parent
    I missed the heartrending stories (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    at the end.  (Hope the facts are accurate!)

    Parent
    So This Is News? (none / 0) (#130)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    Is there any question how bad the news coverage is in the good old U.S. of A? Obviously, we've come to expect this lack of coverage integrety from the MSM. The thing that absolutely drives me crazy is the almost non-stop Hillary Bashing and Obama Spooning from the so called "Progressive Media". I live in Portland, OR and our Progressive Talk station is so vitriolic towards Hillary ad nauseum with the notable exception of local and Air America's Thom Hartman. At least he has the integrity to not endorse a candidate and to call the Obamaphlies on there disinformation. How will Olbermann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, et al, ever survive should Hillary get the nomination? But, as has often been said, they won't because the "Fix is in the bag". That's the kind of "Change", read Chicago Politics, that Obama will bring to Washington.


    The sad thing is that... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    Olbermann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, and Stephanie Miller are spewing more hate towards Hillary than "slanthead" Sean Hannity, at least these days.

    Parent
    Sad But True (none / 0) (#175)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    And then they claim that Hillary's dividing the Democratic Party! Try looking in the mirror!

    Parent
    Race vs class (none / 0) (#138)
    by Leo9 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    the "presumptive nominee" lost by 40 points in a primary. Has this EVER happened? How could it have happened? What does it mean?

    The great cravass that opened up tonight in the West Virginia primary results made me suddenly realize something simple yet seldom discussed by the media pundits. The vast majority of voters for Hillary in West Virginia and rural Pennsylvania are not racists so much as poor and are looking for economic leadership and solutions which they believe Hillary Clinton might be better at providing. In other words, their view of Hillary hinges less on race and more on class and their economic struggle. By contrast, Obama (not knowing how to connect with them) has virtually abandoned them.

    When it came to this constituency in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia, dare I say it?  Barack abandoned hope.

    Obama's SF remarks on the "bitterness" of working-class voters in places like western Pennsylvania and West Virginia were his awkward way to explain how dire economic conditions give rise to "bitterness" including xenophobia and racism. The pundits (and even Hillary) called him "elitist" but the more accurate word was -- ironically -- "hopeless." He didn't even campaign much personally in W Va -- what does that say? He went halfway by diagnosing the problem of "bitterness" but (because of his own fear or resentment of them, who knows?) he didn't bother to face them and try to connect with this constituency with a cure to reduce the bitterness, xenophobia and racism by offering leadership to improve economic conditions. This is a major blind spot for Sen Obama.

    The primary results tonight brought home to me a key insight: that the one who not only understands but can bring "hope" and "unity" is not Barack Obama but Hillary Clinton because of her strength as a fighter for the middle class that communicates viscerally with this constituency. If she doesn't win the nomination, will he be wise enough to meditate on this truth, pick up her baton and run with it?

    Even as a Hillary supporter, (none / 0) (#163)
    by mg7505 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:39:12 PM EST
    I can't understand why Obama is blamed for losing big in primaries but Hillary (if she is the nominee) doesn't have to be held accountable for the multiple 20/30+ margins of defeat she's had.

    Sorry if someone already raised this point before. There are so many comments...

    Couple things (none / 0) (#167)
    by daria g on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:18 AM EST
    Caucuses are very different and account for quite a few of those.

    The Clinton campaign spent money strategically (now, you could surely debate whether it was GOOD strategically, but following a strategy nonetheless) on Super Tuesday which meant not competing much in some states.  And then I think they were pretty much out of resources for some time after esp the Potomac primaries.  Very much outspent.

    Obama's never hurt for resources, he's outspent Clinton 2-1, 3-1 in these recent states and isn't winning them.

    Parent

    Obama visited WV what (none / 0) (#173)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:39:07 AM EST
    once? Twice?

    He hardly campaigned there at all.

    Bad on him IMO.  Nevertheless, it's fairly clear that Obama has not seriously contested WV or KY.

    Parent

    The landslide tonight (none / 0) (#174)
    by tcwj on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    I am surprised that my comments last night have been pulled off this site.
    I just asked the question "Is there something else going on here?" vis a vis the numbers in WV.
    Every person interviewed including a woman on GMA said that Obama was Muslim and thus could not be voted for. I even quoted Kate Snow's reaction/non-reaction....can anyone tell me why my comment was pulled?

    Thanks,
    TCWJ

    Obamaland | 169 comments (169 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment