home

The Convention Narrative So Far

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I do not know how it looks from the ground in Denver, but on cable TV the story is All About The Clintons. As predictable as it was, apparently the fact that the Convention Narrative today is Dem Divided/What About The Clintons? comes as a great shock to the Obama camp and his supporters, both in the Media and on the blogs.

Picking Joe Biden (who is only mentioned in passing on TV today), which was the best Obama could do once he ruled out picking Hillary, especially the way it was rolled out, pretty much guaranteed this result. Obama should have known this would happen, and assuming he did, he chose this path.

To change the subject, Ted Kennedy is being flown out from Boston tonight for the tribute to him. But let's face it, the Media can't resist the chance to attack the Clintons, so it won't work very well. The good news is old Republican habits die hard and, on MSNBC, GOP talking head Barbara Comstock just smeared the Clintons saying it was the same old Clintons, all about them. If I was on Obama's team, I would get that clip up on You Tube.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Baggage | Most Clinton Delegates Enthused About Obama >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Convention Narrative So Far | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good heavens. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    They just don't get any ratings without throwing Hillary and Bill into the mix, huh? THEY are the ones making it all about the Clintons. I don't see Hillary OR Bill anywhere near a camera or microphone so what are they talking about?  

    It's the Obama supporters doing it, too (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Just had a case in point on the closed thread.  A reply to a comment in which I never once mentioned any Clinton and explained my stance as instead about issues, both Democratic and democratic, i.e., the process.  Etc.

    To which the Obama reply was, of course, "if you support Hillary Clinton," why don't you do what she tells you to do blah blah Obamablahmemo.

    This is why they will lose.  And it is why, frankly, they deserve to lose.  The country cannot and ought not be governed by those who do not listen and are incapable of understanding that others do not think the way that they do.  That would be a disaster like the one we have in the White House now.  

    And it would be worse, because it would be a disaster in the name of the Democrats.  Even though they do not act like Democrats.  They act like amateurs.  More amateurs running the country, we do not need.  

    The answer to everything will be, in their minds. a giant stage and laser light show on the White House lawn.  

    Parent

    You wrote (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by eric on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    The country cannot and ought not be governed by those who do not listen and are incapable of understanding that others do not think the way that they do.

    And I cannot agree more.  As has been repeated here before, there is some precedent for this - the McGovern campaign.

    This quotation was posted here by Steve M some time ago:

    the kids who were running the show alienated every older democrat they encountered!  it was a classic parent/child war!  the problem is that the "children" running the base level campaign forgot to stop fighting when they got mcgovern nominated!

    It's time for these people to stop fighting.  But I don't know if they can because, as you point out, they seem incapable of putting themselves in other people shoes.

    Parent

    Your third paragraph sums up perfectly (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    my 4th reason for not supporting Obama.  Thank you, I've had a very hard time articulating it.

    Parent
    The problem with this post (3.66 / 3) (#64)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    Is this:
    "To which the Obama reply was..."

    It wasn't Obama's reply.  It was some random person on the web representing their own poitn of view.  I assume you already know this, and it would be just a slip up if not for:

    "And it is why, frankly, they deserve to lose.  The country cannot and ought not be governed by those who do not listen and are incapable of understanding that others do not think the way that they do. "

    This person online is not going to be "governing" anything.  There are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama himself.  But the actions of some internet supporters is not one of them.

    Parent

    If Hillary is responsible for her supporters (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:16:51 AM EST
    then Obama is responsible for his.

    Parent
    LOL, good one. I guess Obama needs to do more (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    just like Hillary needs to do more. Always nice to turn their argument right around on them.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    I do NOT think Hillary is responsible for her supporters.  I think Hillary is way better than the majority of her supporters, as is Obama.  I am not the one holding a double standard here.

    Parent
    The Catch-22 remains for Obama (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    In order to retain his media darling status he has to keep rejecting the Clintons.

    Rejecting the Clintons leads to what we see now, the media exploiting disunity in the Dem party.

    It's a decision that Obama wakes up to and makes every day, and he continues to make the wrong one because he knows he can't win without media darling status.

    Your theory is that, if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    made nice w/the Clintons, he would no longer be the media darling?

    Parent
    Well, I don't think it's the (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:37:56 AM EST
    only reason he is a media darling, but it definitely helps his media darling status that he rides the wave of CDS and sexism in the media, as opposed to fighting it.

    Parent
    IF that's his theory, I'd say he's correct! Obama (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    may be the MCM pick right now, but I'm not sure how solid his "support" from the MCMers actually is. They're had it with BushCo incompetency, but they still are pushing to make Obama just another Villager.

    If Obama does reveal himself to actually be liberal/progressive/anywhere left of the Villagers (gastp!), he will probably get the Clinton treatment. After all, the MCM actually pulled its punches in the '92 campaign--they did not fully support Poppy, used some iffy thing against him (that grocery story scanner story was an MCM scammer misreading of what Bush I actually said--it fit their Narrative for that election). As Somerby pointed out recently, see which jokes by a candidate are being taken by the MCM as serious statements by that candidate, then used against that candidate, to see which person the MCM is hunting to take down.

    With Clinton, the first real sign the MCM was going on the attack was their falling in line with San Nunn's attack on Cliton's implementing his promise to support gays in the military. Wow! BAM! The MCM was all over him, tearing into him, and emerging red in tooth and claw. They were starting their long, slow killing hunt--which is still not over.

    So, would they turn on Obama? Oh, yes. Perhaps with more restraint to avoid being labeled racist. But there would be deadly sincere-sounding laments as to his inexperience badly  affecting US security and foreign policy.

    Parent

    The question that must not be asked is (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    Why?

    It may be regarded an asset, but no one ever asks "why?"

    I think it's because he's rejecting the Clintons.

    It's a trade off for the media.  Either way, they get to marginalize the Democratic Party.  Either by taking away Obama's media darling status, or by exploiting the disunity.

    Either way, they can attack the Democratic Party just as they alway have and always will.

    But for Obama, he's been able to figure out a way to make sure that attack doesn't apply to him.

    So.  Is he a Democrat?

    The answer to your question is "Yes.  What other reason could there be?"

    Parent

    Reasons: gives good speeches, (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    attracts large crowds of cheering listeners, something new this way comes?

    Parent
    Exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    and once again Obama allows the media to engage in CDS to distract from his Empty Suit and now - Biden pick.

    NYT
    http://tinyurl.com/6nafrt

    >>>When Senator Barack Obama mentioned last week at the Saddleback Church faith forum that he wouldn't have appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court bench, perhaps he had already been reviewing the presiding role that his now running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., played in the judge's confirmation hearings long ago.

    Mr. Biden at the time was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And while the Delaware Democrat ultimately voted against confirming Mr. Thomas, he was widely criticized by liberal legal advocates and women's groups as having mismanaged the allegations of sexual harassment made by Ms. Hill against her former employer, Mr. Thomas, at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at those hearings.

    Parent

    <sigh> (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    >>>As a short aside, one of Mr. Biden's key aides at the time, who reviewed the allegations and dealt with Ms. Hill, was Harriet Grant, who is now married to I. Lewis Libby, otherwise known as "Scooter."

    Parent
    Wow!!!! Can we just click (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    out heels three times and all will be the way it should be?! I really don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

    Parent
    Naw. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    Media Darling status isn't contingent on Obama bashing the Clintons.  The Media will bash the Clintons regardless.  Heck, I think the Media would happier if they had Presumptive VP Hillary Clinton to gossip about this morning.

    But it's humorous to note that even though Obama has tried to ignore the Clintons as much as practicable for months, they still manage to upstage his just because they are The Clintons.  It has nothing to do with Obama or the Clintons and everything to do with the Media.

    (Of course, if Obama had made a big show of becoming the Clintons bestest buddy, the Media would have less to talk about.  In that case the narrative would have been "How do the Clintons fit into an Obama campaign/administration?".)

    Parent

    This is the payback (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    For not giving them what they want, a Clinton on the ticket, particularly after that disaster of a VP rollout.

    This is a narrative that ends Thursday night and they plan to make absolutely sure that they can milk all of the Ink and preposterous framing out of this as possible. They are not at all happy about Hillary not being in the sights from now until November.

    It would really be nice to see some of the "A" list blogs denounce this obvious attempt by the media to create more dis-unity than already exists, but sadly, they seem to believe anything MSNBC can conjure up. I keep waiting for the pushback, from the party, the blogosphere, and responsible journalists but I get the idea it just aint coming.

    Parent

    No, Obama is obsessed with the Clintons (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    from every indication.  It is not that he has ignored them.  It's that he has been incredibly vindictive and rude to them.

    And he doesn't get that what he does to them, he does to their supporters.  So he is being incredibly vindictive and rude to me, in addition to all the ways that he behaved toward me in the primary.

    Gosh, yeh, I want to go to the polls to enable more of that for the next four years.  Not.

    Parent

    But only the Olbys and Mathews will care about (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cards In 4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    the Clintons after the convention is over.  Then everyone will notice that Biden is everything Obama was running against.  The media echo chamber the Obama campaign lives in has no idea why Biden will change no state from red to blue.

    Parent
    Then his media darling status (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    Was always over-estimated.

    If his media darling status is an asset it is because Obama gets to project his marketing buzz without living up to it, and then not get attacked for doing that in the media.

    That's the asset.

    So I guess we'll see then if it's an asset.  If you are right, and I am wrong, then Obama will lose because the media finally did turn against him.

    As has been predicted by others who participate in this ongoing discussion.

    Parent

    If you run a divisive campaign (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:28:46 AM EST
    The inevitable narrative is: "Divided Party"

    The media may finally be on to something... (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Larry Bailey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    ...and may not be just hyping up excitement and ratings (as some seem to think). They ignored the anger of Clinton supporters until the pollsters started teasing out the data and making a point of the level of disaffection. I believe it's real, substantial, and now being quantified. Seems to me the DNC-Obama Campaign should have considered this possibility months ago and prepared for it by choosing Clinton as VP. That would have negated any need/desire for a roll-call and assured a pretty unity scene. Instead, they made a point of further offending Clinton supporters by ignoring HRC in the VP selection process and pulling the 3 a.m. texting stunt.

    I'm afraid "Happy Days Are Here Again" is going to sound really off-key this time.

    One of the msm pointed out (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    last night that when Michelle "heard" that Barak picked Biden, she clapped with joy and said good choice Barak!!!! Draw your own conclusions.  

    Parent
    Pure gossip. (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    Anyone can say that. I heard that Michelle advocated hard for Hillary to be the VP candidate and was disapointed when she was told it was Biden.

    Parent
    Where did you hear this. From (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    what I've heard from the "media" and others, is that Michelle could've cared less about Hillary. Michelle herself publically said that she didn't know if she could support Hillary had she been nominated.

    Parent
    On teebee (none / 0) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    Your point would be relevant if you could get the talking heads to say that on the news programs.  You can't because their story line is that Michelle does NOT like Clinton.

    Parent
    The Ted Kennedy tribute (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM EST
    Feels like goodbye.  Probably because it is.  I don't think there will be a dry eye in the house.  And you're right, I'm sure the MSM will just use it as an excuse to talk about a "rift" btwn him and the Clintons.

    Hillary just gave a stemwinder speech on unity and (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    supporting Obama. Mentioned that being Dems folks don't just fall in line, have diverse opinions, etc., but unity for real change is the important thing.

    I messed up my post a doubled it under the Entitled post, but here's summary of it.

    Classic Hillary. (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    Now THAT'S what a Unity Ambassador should be.

    Too bad we get the other kind.

    Parent

    and what does this say (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    about the Nominee when he's not interesting enough to talk about and fill time with ... especially during the Convention where he'll be officially Nominated?

    If the Media believes trashing the Clintons will help Obama win in November, then they have the attention span of infant fruit flies.

    He's still a very popular ex-President, she got more votes than anyone in Primary History (including her opponent, the Nominee) and most Americans have fond memories of how life was during his time in Office.

    But there stands Obama, his campaign and many of his supporters, still throwing fuel on the fire and driving away the very same Voters they desperately need.

    Oh well.

    Says More About the Media (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    who, as long as there's a Clinton anywhere on the scene will fixate on her (them) and look for (or manufacture) drama.

    But here they don't have to manufacture it, because the existing divides in the party are OF COURSE going to be front and center at the convention.

    Parent

    No - at this point it says more about Obama (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07:57 AM EST
    willing to allow the media's CDS to continue - further dividing the party - because Obama refuses to jeopardize his Media Darling status.
    What has Obama ever stood up for?
    Oh yeah - Rev. Wright and Joe Biden (assuring the public during a debate that Biden wasn't a racist.)

    Parent
    What Would You Have Obama Do? (none / 0) (#84)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    You say he's 'allowing the media's CDS to continue'.

    If you truly believe Obama has it in his power to either cure the media's addiction to CDS or even at least get them to stop indulging in it, then you've drunk deeper of his kool aid than I, a supporter of his, ever did.

    We're talking a 16 year devotion to making drama and melodrama out of everything Clinton.

    And it's not like he's getting any advantage out of their obsessive coverage of the Clintons now. Strictly for himself, I believe he and his campaign (not to mention the party itself) would prefer a different narrative dominate this week.

    Parent

    disagree (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    >>>And it's not like he's getting any advantage out of their obsessive coverage of the Clintons now

    Perhaps not a polling advantage, but it provides justification to Obamabots that the Clintons are evil and Biden was a better VP choice.
    But the biggest disadvantage is - further dividing the party.
    Obama won't denounce the media's CDS because he's indebted to the media for promoting him 24/7 and concealing his lies.

     

    Parent

    Obamabots (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST
    Not sure they do anyone any good, Obama included.

    Thankfully, they are a tiny (albeit very vocal) minority.

    Parent

    He may not be able to turn the entire (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:22:46 PM EST
    CDS narrative, but he hasn't even tried.  In fact, with little stunts like the 3am text, he's been fueling it.

    His campaign still hasn't left the primaries; a primary fight against a same-party opponent is all he or Axelrod knows how to fight.  So they persist in thinking riling up the negative on the Clintons is a winner.

    But the audience has changed.  The audience for the general is not 20-somethings whose knowledge of history is confined to Obama's talking point memos, or latte fantasy liberals who may understand history but are still mad at Bill for not being liberal enough (and who can afford to ignore what a bad economy feels like).  The GE audience remembers what it was like to actually have a Clinton as President.

    And in the meantime, the audience for the general is looking for answers, not juvenile pranks played on the other side.


    Parent

    Speaking of juvenile and (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    feeding, or not, media CDS.

    DENVER (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is scolding journalists for fixating on conflicts between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    At the same time, Pelosi concedes that Democrats have not yet achieved the reconciliation they need.

    Pelosi faced a series of questions at a news conference Monday in Denver, where Democrats were beginning their national convention. Most were about how the Obama and Clinton camps will come together after their bitter primary fight.

    Pelosi told reporters: "You know what? This is like a yesterday room."

    She added: "We are going into the future. What did I walk into, a time capsule?"

    Parent

    That's Hill-arious! She (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    with the 10% rating, lecturing everyone else. Why, even Donna B. says we'll all come out as one big, united party!!! La, la, la, la!

    Parent
    3 AM? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    I don't get this reference.

    My sense was that the Obama campaign reacted to the media getting wind of his Biden announcement early so they rushed their text messages out (inopportunely) early in the AM.

    Are you saying it was something else?

    As to your characterization of Obama primary supporters...this is tired, frankly. I'm 53 and not in any kind of position to ignore the bad economy.

    I know dozens of Obama supporters--the youngest a 28 yr old female engineer, and several who are over 80.

    I dislike these glib put downs of Obama supporters as much as I dislike similar insults/distorted images of Clinton's. I guess it entertains in some quarters, but it ultimately only serves to keep us all divided and disrespecting. It's especially disappointing in grown up (i.e. not 'juvenile') settings like this one.

    Parent

    Should've Announced Biden Two Weeks Ago (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    before the Olympics.  Unless it was Clinton, they needed to get the VP selection aftermath over with before the convention.  That they don't seem to understand this or don't care is why they're continuing to have a problem uniting the Democratic base.  I've yet to see a political problem get better by pretending it doesn't exist.

    This was the obama camp's way of (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    stringing Hillary supporters along.  But deep down most of us knew he was blowing smoke and never intended her to be VP.  VP is waaaaaay below Hillary's paygrade... :)

    Parent
    It was also about (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    giving us time to heal, cuz we were grieving and all.

    They were being kind /LOL.

    Maybe they'll figure out that we weren't actually grieving.  Do you think it will happen before or after Nov. 4.

    Parent

    Not even after November 4 (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    because it never, never is about Obama and his supporters and how their campaign has been conducted.

    By now, after all these months, I can only conclude that he and they and the campaign is hopeless.  He and they and etc. have had all summer to show me that they can run a country, but they can't even run a campaign that can win.

    They apparently can run laser light shows.  That's all.

    Parent

    It seems to me that it's not exactly (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    Republicans going after Clinton, they are just repeating the narrative to get on air. I think they're taking their cues from the likes of MSNBC, CNN and anyone willing to bash the Clintons. I believe the Repubs. are glad it wasn't vp Hillary. The move now, I believe, is to prop up Sen. Obama, it's always been about that, he said he wanted to make it about "change." Just to stand up at a podium and turn his head from prompter to prompter isn't change. I bet on Thursday, he'll once again praise Hillary for the sake of his daughters and say it's time to move on to effect change and the pundits will all say how brilliant and articulate he is. Ol' Chris might tingle so much, he'll have to excuse himself for a moment of his own!!!!

    I think it is too late for Obama to rectify (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    The more I see and the closer to November, the less I want to do with the Democratic Party. I saw Caroline Kennedy coyly stating that the Ambassadorship to England would be interesting, after being directly questioned about it. This whole thing sickens me. Where has she been her whole life?

    I don't even like McCain this year.  I did 4 years ago but simply cannot vote for Obama.  Can't be done.  

    Such animosity toward the Clintons amazes me.  I will not be a part of it or reward it in anyway.  Sc*ew them all!

    Are You Suggesting - (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jamawani on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    That Obama and people in his camp are just politicians -
    Like all the others?

    Parent
    No, much worse at it than almost (3.66 / 3) (#70)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM EST
    any others.

    Are you suggesting that continuing to p*ss off voters they need is what other winners have done?  You can't be suggesting that, because then they would not have been winners.

    So you are suggesting that the voters Obama continues to p*ss off are not needed.  Got it.  You don't need me.  Okay, you can go on to your next blog now and display more illogic to lose more support for Obama.  Bye.

    Parent

    Chill a While (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jamawani on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:57 AM EST
    I am suggesting precisely what you are saying -
    Sarcastically.

    And without the colour.

    Parent

    why isn't the media promoting Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    leading up to her address tonight?
    There are plenty of her taped speeches....
    Oh wait - tonight's DNC theme is "One America."

    The GOP is feeding these anti-Clinton storylines (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    to the media. They know that although the media won't trash Obama they will bite every time when offered a chance to trash the Clintons. And they know this doesn't do the Democratic party or the Obama campaign any good in the long run.

    What has amazed me is that the Obama campaign does not seem to have woken up to this fact and come up with a strategy to counter it. They keep getting rolled by the GOP and the media -- and it appears that it is their own nutty hatred of the Clintons that is allowing them to get rolled in this way.

    Note to clueless Obama supporters in the media and in the party -- the GOP wouldn't be issuing these Clinton bashing (and at times supporting) talking points if they didn't think the media's obsession with all things Clinton worked to THEIR advantage. Get off your duffs and DO SOMETHING that demonstrates the party is united -- like making it very clear that you won't tolerate GOP and media trashing of such prominent and successful Democratic leaders.

    Um, are you for real? (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    In one of the debates when asked how he would make use of former presidents, he said all sorts of nice things about W's father, and didn't even mention Bill.

    Do you really think that much of Obama's campaign wasn't about Clinton bashing?  That's silly.

    Parent

    If this is based on hearing last (none / 0) (#39)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    night about both parties putting out talking points to the the media each day, bashing the other side is a mutual point. If you have any other source about the republicans driving the narrative or supplying the media with spin on Hillary, please show us.

    Parent
    Its been reported on political blogs like Politico (none / 0) (#60)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    in the Washington Post, etc. Of course the Republicans are feeding anti-Clinton talking points to the media -- for instance, suggesting the Clintons used pressure to "take over" the convention (and thereby making Obama look "weak") etc.

    If you really don't think the REPUBLICANS aren't feeding this, and that it is aimed at ultimately at damaging Obama, you are naive.

    What do you think was the point of the ad McCain primarily for showing on the morning talk shows yesterday? It was an opportunity to get lots of free air time to reiterate points about Obama's lack of experience. AND fuel Democratic party divisions and resentments at the same time.

    Has the Obama camp used a lot of GOP type talking points against Clinton? Have they encouraged Clinton derangement among their supporters? Yes. But that was mostly during the primary.

    As little as I think of their strategic abilities, even I don't think they are stupid enough to be fueling this kind of stuff now, in the general election, when it can only be harmful to their cause.

    Parent

    disagree, it's all coming from TeamObama (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    on this score. From what I hear, Republicans have been scared sh*tless that Obama would make Hillary the VP. So they have been holding their tongue about Hillary and have been playing nice. Well, mostly, because they just can't help themselves sometimes.

    No, it's been the Obama team that have such intense hatred of anything Clinton that they are still in the primary mode of operation. That has been pretty clear every day. And not bothering to even vet Hillary, doing that dance about the roll call issues, the non stop Hillary and Hillary supporter bashing from all Obama quarters, and of course the 3am text message make this clear.

    Nope, sadly, this really wrong headed behavior really is coming from them and is not a secret plot of the GOP. The Obama campaign and Obama supporters are their own worse enemies when it comes to winning over Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    As predicted (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by OxyCon on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    When Obama loses, it won't be because he was a bad candidate and the country rejected him, it will be the Clinton's fault. As I've said many, many times, the media and the Obama blogs (the former A-list Liberal blogs) have been flogging this meme for months now.
    This is because the former A-list blogs will never admit that they were wrong in their support for Obama, and there are too many people in our media inflicted with CDS.
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    and that pile of bridges burned at every turn?

    Well he wouldn't have burned them if she'd dropped out when he told her to! ;-).

    Parent

    Yup--I bet if Obama loses it will be Hillary's (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    fault for not having vetted Obama enough during the campaign and laying all his weaknesses out for the public and the Dem Party elders to clearly see!!

    There will be something to blame her and Bill for.

    And if he wins and doesn't live up to the expectations? That too will be the Clintons' fault!!

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    party disunity is what Obama has been promoting. He started a fire that's going to engulf the party and himself until he goes down to a loss in Nov.

    If this is what being a "media darling" does then no candidate should ever want that status from here on out.

    It was a mistake (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    not to squelch the "maybe it will be Hillary" speculation much sooner.

    If she was never going to be seriously considered, and she was okay with that, then they should have asked her to say something publicly much earlier in the process.

    If she wasn't okay with it, well then, I dunno, maybe they should have seriously considered her?  Wouldn't have killed them.

    Letting it all flare up at the last minute really wasn't the brightest thing.  And of course, the anonymous surrogates from both sides are behaving as unhelpfully as possible in the media.

    Sometimes it seems to me that (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    when the Obama camp says "no drama," what they really mean is "no passion."

    All of what you say is obvious, but they've got their plan, and they're sticking to it.

    Parent

    "No Drama" (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by jamawani on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    Is just another sexist meme.
    You know - those women - always drama queens.

    Parent
    Okay, you've got it! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    and you're not an Obama troll at all.  Please ignore my misreading of your comment above.  And welcome, she said abashedly. :-)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
    eight years ago there was a guy who lost the Presidency because, for strategic reasons I'm sure he thought were oh-so-convincing, he chose not to get the most mileage out of someone named Clinton.

    It would be a crime for history to repeat itself.  Hillary has shown an immediate eagerness to campaign for the ticket in a way that is pretty much unprecedented in the annals of tough primary losses.  They need to take full advantage of that.  If they feel insecure about Hillary "stealing the spotlight" in some sense, they need to just Get Over It [tm].

    Parent

    Agreed completely. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST


    Parent
    I think it's too late now (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    They bungled it.  At this point, the best thing would be for Hillary to take herself off the stage (after the convention), except maybe for one or two photo ops with Obama.

    Because she's starting to look like a prisoner, and her calls to support Obama are not helping in the polls.

    Parent

    Post hoc reasoning re Gore n/t (none / 0) (#96)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    So you consider learning from past mistakes to be "post hoc reasoning"?  How unconstructive.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#122)
    by rilkefan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    "for strategic reasons I'm sure he thought were oh-so-convincing"

    You beg the question here - your claim is plain post hoc as it stands.

    Of course over reliance on reasoning from analogy, such as you demonstrate above, is another common mistake, but one thing at a time.

    Parent

    And who does that remind you of? (none / 0) (#32)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    and he should have picked Biden weeks ago. That way there wouldn't be this constant narrative of Biden talking about how Obama isn't up to the job of president. They would have had some time to deal with his baggage instead of trying to fight the baggage and do the convention at the same time.

    Parent
    I think picking Biden so late (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    was an attempt to hide a drop in Dem support (Clinton supporters waiting to see if HRC was the VP pick) with a Convention bounce.  The down and the up cancel each other out.

    Parent
    But if Obama did as you said (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by OxyCon on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    ...then he wouldn't have been able to get one more kick into Hillary's gut by announcing his VP pick at 3:00 AM.
    As in "It's 3:00 AM and you ain't the Vice President B---H!"
    Just another passive aggressive touch.

    Parent
    I Found Out It Was Biden Today (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    after being away this weekend.  I still held out a slim reed of hope it was Hillary even though I knew it wasn't.   But it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had done anything to ask for my vote before this weekend.  The only reason Biden is a slap at Clinton supporters is that Clinton as VP was Obama's last chance to offer Clinton supporters something before the convention.  Instead, we continue to get a big heaping helping of "Get Over It."  Well, I'm not over 2000, so it's a little soon to get over 2008.

    Parent
    When guys like Halperin (none / 0) (#79)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    throw unsourced rumors out that Hillary will be the pick, what is Obama supposed to do?

    If he came out and ruled her out at the beginning,he would get hammered. It did not matter when or how, some Hillary supporters would be disapointed.

    As Obama said at the beginning, do not believe anything you hear til it comes from them. But the media would not live with that.

    Parent

    I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    I guess, as you say, he's just completely helpless.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    should squash those rumors then. He's allowed the media to do their divisive stuff for far too long. It's now a fire that's going to engulf Obama in Nov.

    Parent
    I respect (none / 0) (#90)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    your opinion but do you really think that any one man can control the American and world press?

    Should he be out there condemning the press everyday only to have them completely turn on him and boost mccain even more?

    Is the media unfair to Hillary? yes. Could Obama make them stop? I do not think so.

    Parent

    Isn't (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Nadai on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    managing the press part and parcel of the President's job?  What's going to happen if he gets elected?  "Oh, so sorry I didn't pass any decent bills, the press was against me."

    I swear to the FSM, Obama's supporters make him look weaker than the Republicans could ever hope to.

    Parent

    Oh, poor, pitiful Obama (none / 0) (#99)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    He just doesn't seem to have any power over the media. It's so unfair.

    /snark!

    Parent

    If Obama Truly Wanted a Dem Victory - (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jamawani on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    He would have set aside his personal feelings about the Clintons and chosen HRC for the Veep slot.  Now THAT would have been an exercise in party unity.  Instead, there has been a steady drumbeat of "You MUST support the nominee!" directed towards Clinton supporters.

    What ever happened to the old saying,
    "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."?
    If browbeating is the method of choice in the Obama campaign -
    then his presidential governing style does not look promising.

    However, that possibility is increasingly unlikely.

    My mom used to quote an old poem, (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    "He drew a circle that shut me out:
    Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
    But love and I had the wit to win.
    We drew a circle that took him in."

    Hillary gets this. Obama does not.

    Parent

    Edwin Markham, Outwitted-- (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    More quotes.

    Thanks for turning me on to this.

    Parent

    New narrative to go with No Drama (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    I hope this is not OT but I wanted to share and make sure BTD saw this and muy e-mail isn't working. The story made me cringe and I am not looking forward to this. So much for the politics of contrast.

    Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner says his speech is "99 percent done" and will not include harsh criticism of McCain or the GOP.

    "They knew when I started this that it wasn't going to be a hard core, red meat speech. If they want that, I'm not their guy."

    LINK

    I'd say that there's a person (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    who is "changing the tone" of the election.

    Parent
    That was the Kerry approach--Jimmie Carter got (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    dissed bcz he wouldn't follow the convention/Kerry line that Dems don't speak ill of Bush and Repubs.

    Kerry was criticized for not being more direct in his compare and contrast, iirc.

    Parent

    Nothing wrong in comparing and (none / 0) (#49)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    contrasting without "bashing" the other guy.  

    Parent
    Unless you're Hillary Clinton comparing and con- (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    trasting her record and plans with Obama's during this past primary. Then C&C was called "bashing."

    And the MCM went along with that. Hillary Attacks!

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton holding NY state only presser soon (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    WNYC reporter will be there. Now Brian Lehrer still on the theme of will Hillary divide the Dem Party by, gasp!, getting her name in nomination.

    What is going on here? He's covered plenty of conventions where the guys who lost got their moment of having their votes reported during the first roll call. What's so wrong with having a woman getting hers called out then????

    Reporter said Hillary delegates are now confused as to whether she is asking them to not vote for her on the first roll call....

    All about the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST
    It isn't just the MSM keeping the Clinton's front and center. I was listening to Air America this morning and that's all they could talk about. It was the usual Stephanie Miller bash Hillary and Hillary supporters all the time, and similar for other shows. The extreme hate for the Clinton's just oozes out of the pores of the Obama supporters. They just can't help themselves. I don't see that stopping anytime soon. At this point I think we have a full blown neurotic disorder on our hands for this group. I expect the blame Hillary for everything will continue threw the election and beyond. In fact, I'd say even if Obama wins, they'll continue to be all about the Clintons.

    As for the GOP, it's the same disorder. They can't help it either. Even though playing nice would allow them to win. They can't help it.

    All of this tells us the immense power of the Clintons. When the world is still revolving around them even though she's not in the race. The irony of course is that with everyone focusing on them, they remain the central power of the party.

    Commenting after a long time (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by BigB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    BTD,

    This is first time I am commenting here since the end of the Democratic primary battle. I am a strong Hillary supporter. I held back on commenting to see (a) whether my feelings toward Obama changes (b) if other disgruntled Hillary supporters come around towards him and (c) whether Obama is smart enough to choose Hillary.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately) me views of, and feelings towards Obama have not improved and have gotten worse since his presumptuous foreign tour.

    I see from the polls this is the way a good number of Hillary supporters feel.

    Obama's inability to put his ego aside and choose Hilalry Clinton (as Kennedy did with Johnson and Reagan did with Bush) tells me that he is not tough enough and pragmatic enough to do what it takes to win.

    I am sorry to say that, at the end of this process, I am more strongly leaning towards McCain and this is from someone who has never voted for a Republican in all his life. The unique combination of circumstances, Obama on the Democratic side and McCain on Republican side, leads me to this decision.

    Before any charges of racism are throw around for my decision, let me make it clear that I am a minority in this country.

    It's not likely (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    that anyone on this blog will accuse you of racism.

    Thanks for the comment.  I am sure a number of Hillary voters have gone silent in the past few weeks for whatever reason.  Thanks for expressing your opinion.

    Parent

    In the same boat as you (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    I read your post and smiled. I left the forums here after the end of the primaries and mostly stayed away for the same reasons. I have honestly tried, and tried hard, to start liking and supporting Sen Obama (as an independent, no longer a democrat). But everything they do just pushes me the other way.

    I really never believed he would pick Hillary, no matter how much I was sure that would be instant victory.

    Just wanted to say, me too.

    Parent

    Commenting after a long time... (4.50 / 2) (#100)
    by Larry Bailey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    BigB, I know how you feel, but -- instead of voting for McCain -- you might feel better in the long run by simply being a down-ticket Dem.  Skip the top line, if your feelings persist, but don't give your vote to the GOP.  They don't deserve it, no matter what incivility we've endured in the primaries from the Obama campaign and its fervent supporters. I'm with you 100% emotionally, but WILL NOT ever cast a vote for a Republican.

    Parent
    Avedon at Sideshow suggested voting for Cynthia (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    McKinney to prove to the pollsters that not voting for Obama was out and out racism.

    A neat piece of snark. Awhile ago. Must look for citation.

    Parent

    The world loves a winner (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    Until Obama becomes president the story will be the Clinton's. He isn't the leader of the party yet. Until,(and if) Obama proves his strategy for the party is a winner, he can't dethrone the king! Respect is something that should be earned, not given.

    good Morning Joe segment this am (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:19:40 AM EST
    vid somewhere here

    with Pat "Knee-cap'Em" Buchanan and Rev. Eugene Rivers.....Rivers (Obama supporter) adamantly discussing with Pat how it's Obama that has to step it up...10 minute political discussion without one mention of Clinton....THANK YOU

    Nobody is talking about Biden (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    because he immediated went into seclusion after Saturday's rally.

    Another mistake by the Obama communications team imo.

    He should have been on every one of the Sunday morning shows talking the ticket up.

    No, he will have to be (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    tightly controlled.  I imagine he's getting some intense message training.  It's difficult to get someone like Biden on message, he's prone to talking and talking and talking.  He's a major ego.  The camp doesn't want him on all the shows blathering about himself... he needs to put on message, what is the Repub/McCain data the campaign wants him to focus on?... 70 days, 7 weeks tick tock, tick tock.

    Parent
    I disagree - the Obama camp has been (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    so overly controlled that they have gotten boring and predictable.  Biden brings an unpredictability to the ticket and a sense of humor that the Obama camp has sorely lacked.

    I think they need to let him do his thing and be out there.  If they don't, they've wasted their time in picking him.

    Some people were appalled that he spoke from notes on Saturday.  I was glad to see someone in the Democratic Party be able to deliver a rallying speech that actually felt like it came from the heart rather than a speech writer in the backroom.

    Parent

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#1)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    Are you saying you would put up a clip to try to reinforce the idea that the Clintons are the same old pols, and self-centered to boot?

    I think Obama should get on the media and criticize the Republicans.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    No, I would put up the clip to show that the GOP is the same as it ever was.

    Parent
    It undercuts McCain's use of Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    as victim to peel off her supporters. Seen the "why didn't he choose her" ad?

    Parent
    If McCain had (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    been tied to the GOP brand that might be effective. However, we're post partisan. In Unityland we all hold hands and we can all agree the Clintons are evil. /snark

    If I were Obama I'd become her most ardent defender for sure. Then again, if I were Obama she'd have been my VP. Doh.

    Parent

    The ad (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    could include clips of McCain along with generic GOP.  He wasn't always Hillary's best friend.  Remember "how do we beat the b*tch?"

    Obama could definitely use a Hillary ad of his own.  Including all the GOP anti-Hillary clips and the pro-untiy DEM clips.

    Parent

    The difference is that McCain is not a (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    democrat...what obama and his campaign has done is wrong on every level.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    McCain is NOT a democrat.  Which is why this would TIE McCain to the republicans.  I realize he is a republican.  Apparently others do not.  So I say point it out more.  Over and over again.

    Parent
    It's kind (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:55 AM EST
    of disengenous to point out McCain=GOP=bad when you've spent months pointing out that GOP=someone to hold hands with.

    Parent
    Sorry, but I cannot reward anyone with my (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    vote who has denigrated his fellow democrat over and over and has thrown her to the dogs...I expect that from repubs, not those in my party.
    To be honest, McCain has been much more civil than obama and his followers.  McCain probably will not get my vote, but I know FOR SURE obama won't.

    Parent
    You do realize (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    that Republicans are SUPPOSED to be adversarial toward Democrats, right?

    Parent
    I do (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM EST
    I'm not sure Obama does though. Just last week he was excoriating the Dems on regulation. His role model is Reagan(since Clinton wasn't transformative). There appears to be some confusion on his part about who he is supposed to criticize.

    Parent
    If it doesn't talk like a Dem (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    or vote like a Dem, is it a Dem?

    Such an easy test for this voter.  He fails the Dem test, again and again.

    Parent

    Obama has (2.33 / 3) (#87)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    repeatedly said for 18 months that the GOP has created a huge mess in DC by de-regulating everything from commodity speculation rules(Wendy Gramm anyone?) to mortgage bundling.
    Obama has never expressed admiration for Reagan. He noted that Reagan was a president that changed the direction of the country ...in a way obama disagreed with.

    Parent
    He said (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    R offered a sense of dynamism and enterpreneurship that had been missing.

    That's praise, isn't it?  And I don't believe he followed up with censure.  Then the Nevada newspaper endorsed him - the conservative Nevada newspaper.  Why mention R at all?  we have a good model ourselves in Clinton.  

    I really don't care much anymore - but other than mentioning the 90's gains (No mention of Clinton presidency) - has he said anything really positive about President Clinton?  Maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff - I think the poster upstream really is on to something in that O needs the MSM to beat up the Clintons.  

     

    Parent

    He said (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Xanthe on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    R offered a sense of dynamism and enterpreneurship that had been missing.

    That's praise, isn't it?  And I don't believe he followed up with censure.  Then the Nevada newspaper endorsed him - the conservative Nevada newspaper.  Why mention R at all?  we have a good model ourselves in Clinton.  

    I really don't care much anymore - but other than mentioning the 90's gains (No mention of Clinton presidency) - has he said anything really positive about President Clinton?  Maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff - I think the poster upstream really is on to something in that O needs the MSM to beat up the Clintons.  

     

    Parent

    BTD, I salute your bravery and ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    strong stomach.  I cannot watch commercial cable news anymore.  I was never a bit fan, and this year I totally gave up.

    So I will be watching convention coverage via PBS and C-Span where the hysteria is significantly muted.

    Jaw dropping moment: NPR news summary just (none / 0) (#97)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    reported that the emphasis (tonight?) at the convention will be about Obama's background, "his single parent raising overseas." Not sure the wording is exact, but, crikey, he was never raised in a single-parent household while he lived overseas.

    David Maraniss was on C-Span this morning about his recent article in the WaPo on Obama's biography. Still many things he can't get info on, he said, but he stated he has a copy of Obama's birth certificate.

    Anyway, he mentioned that Obama Sr. may have left Obama's mother and baby Barack before he was two years old. He doesn't know if she and the baby tried to join Obama Sr. at Harvard.

    Now, to go look for the link to the WaPo article.

    Here's link with three different bio pieces, (none / 0) (#101)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    including the Maraniss piece in the WaPo.

    And there's a Maraniss Q&A link.

    Parent

    Brilliant. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    I'm sure this will stand up really well when John McCain's fellow POWs recount next week how he was tortured for five years. And yet another election bites the dust . . .

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    Just a few minutes ago on CNN Carl Bernstein was putting on his best "All things Clinton Hatred".  Bill, especially, was his target.  According to him Bill needs to go on stage at the convention and "redeem" himself and his legacy for his bad behavior during the primary season.  Hillary fares only slightly better and also has much work to do to give Obama a win in Nov. or it's all over for the Clintons in the future.  Excuse me but this freak is a first-class pr*ck.  Way to really win over hearts, minds and votes.  

    I suggest ritual suicide at the podium (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    Maybe that will demonstrate enough "fealty."

    Parent
    "The good news is old Republican habits die (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycvoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    hard and, on MSNBC, GOP talking head Barbara Comstock just smeared the Clintons saying it was the same old Clintons, all about them. If I was on Obama's team, I would get that clip up on You Tube."

    Why would you do that???????????? To say you agree?

    The Convention Narrative So Far | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment