An Editorial Response...

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
It's been nine months and over 200 posts since BarkBackNews was started, and until this point I have never felt compelled to respond directly to a posted comment, but the following words are just too much to ignore. It was posted yesterday. The response follows.

Posted by Shadowdancer:
"Scott, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, you have completely lost my respect when you started (sic) insulting, what seems like a random people each post, that only shows that you ran out of intelligent FACTS and are now running on BASELESS and arbitrary views. There is also another choice, perhaps you are just stubborn and cannot admit when you are WRONG. There is only one last thing I can think of it being and that is that you are using your subscribers just to make the sponsors happy and stir up controversy. Whatever the reason, this site seems less like the thought provoking debates you had started with, and seems more like the insane ramblings of deranged psychopaths."

I can only imagine that Shadowdancer is referring to the two contentious main topics that have dominated the conversation over the past month or so--the primary battles between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the possible naming of Colin Powell as John McCain's running mate. During this time there have been 13 BarkBack posts concerning these topics. In those posts, the ONLY personal attacks and name-calling that have taken place on this site have been posted by YOU Shadowdancer. It was YOU who referred to a contributor who attacked no one in his post as a "self-righteous pompous ass" that should "examine the meaningfulness of his life." That contributor rebutted you without a single insult or nasty comment. Now you respond to my post concerning the potential of re-votes in Michigan and Florida (an article in which the only negative words in the entire piece questioned a double-standard on behalf of the Obama campaign) with baseless accusations of constant insults and arbitrary views.

I have NEVER insulted a SINGLE contributor or edited the views of anyone who takes their time to post on BarkBackNews. What exactly are the "arbitrary" views that you speak of--ones that don't happen to agree with your own? Exactly what "Intelligent Facts" have you provided to the conversation-- that you can recount how many medals Colin Powell has won, or call someone else a "pompous ass"--or better yet--a "rambling psychopath?"

*Editor's Note-
Another note concerning the coverage of the two aforementioned topics: The 13 posts/articles in question contain five pieces on General Colin Powell (three positive/two negative) and eight concerning the nomination battle between Senators Obama and Clinton--four pro-Clinton/four pro-Obama.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

In Response...

to: "Obama's Pedestal Continues to Shrink"

Posted by JohnT
1. You left out the sentence in that article about Wright retiring before his comments caused this public outcry. Of course, you had to do that so you could make it look like Obama demanded that he be pushed out.

2. Hillary doesn't have a problem with southern voters? Hillaryious.

3. Uncle Tom minstrel show, huh? Nice stuff.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Obama's Pedestal Continues to Shrink

Posted By Gonfalon Priquer
AP story (truncated) from March 27:
WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday. Asked about the controversy Wright's comments have created, Republican John McCain said while campaigning in Denver: "I can only say that I am sure, knowing Senator Obama, that he does not share the extreme views that were expressed that I saw on television."

Three conclusions:

1. Obama now apparently sets human resources policy for the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago. Because his ambition was slightly derailed by a minister who has several thousand loyal worshippers, those several thousand loyal worshippers will not have their spiritual needs met by the man they came to see each week. Is Obama's gall only surpassed by his narcissism or vice versa?

2. McCain is licking his chops that Obama prevails. Think the POW would be this kissy face with a similar Hillary kerfuffle? Oh, that's right, McCain hasn't EVER responded to any of Hillary's bumps in the campaign road. The POW knows his best shot is against an untested demagogue who has a problem with southern voters.

3. Choosing the estrogen-packed View for this Uncle Tommish mea culpa is bullseye at Hillary's base. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hadn't already been kneecapped by the Obama mafia, I would have delighted at their reaction to Friday's minstrel show.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Despite Protests, FLA/MI Decided Long Ago

Posted by Ken Hart
It's very simple. Michigan's and Florida's Democratic "honchos" (to use your term) decided to move up their primaries in violation of the rules, as did Michigan's and Florida's Republican "honchos." All the Democratic and Republican candidates -- including Hillary -- agreed to their party's choice of sanction. For the Democrats, it was no delegates. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Again, every candidate agreed to abide by these rules. Hillary wants to change the rules now, which is like a football coach saying, "I'm down by two points and there's only time for one play left. Can we move the goal line 10 yards closer?"

Two ironies about this:
1) If Michigan and Florida had stayed in their original spots on the calendar, they would have had a potentially HUGE role in the nomination. Oh well.

2) Hillary isn't even expecting a revote, Scott. She knows that even if she were to win big in both states, she'd still trail by a big amount in both the popular vote and the delegate count. This is all a smokescreen. Mathematically, she's 99.9% kaput. She'd need to win about 70% of the vote in the remaining 10 primaries to catch up, which isn't happening.

She knows that her only option now is to hammer Obama so much that he becomes unelectable, and to convince the super delegates that they need to ditch the results of the popular vote and the delegate count and switch to her.

And that's not happening, either. The Democratic Party is not going to tell the first viable African-American candidate and his supporters, "Sorry, your victory doesn't count." So any actions toward that goal is quixotic, to put it politely, as well as wasteful and destructive toward the Democratic Party.

Yes, Hillary, you've fought well and I'm sorry that your presumed destiny of the past decade isn't happening. But it's time to take a seat for the sake of the party and the country.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Candidates Should Support FLA/MI Revotes

By Scott Cavanagh
One of the main topics of conversation on Sunday's political gabfests was the decision of both Florida and Michigan to forgo any kind of re-voting procedures to determine true winners for their states' controversial early primaries. While representatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign complained that the move discounts the will of hundreds of thousands of key Democratic primary voters, spokespeople for the Barack Obama campaign expressed satisfaction with the developments.

As many of you are probably aware, the Democratic Party bosses in the two states in question decided last year to move-up the dates of their contests to earlier in the nominating process than had been previously planned. This infuriated the national party honchos, who punished the renegade states by declaring their early primaries illegitimate and advising the presidential contenders to avoid campaigning there. Despite the sanctions, both states forged ahead, with Michigan holding it's primary January 17 and Florida following suit on January 30. Early front-runner Clinton's "victories" in those two controversial contests appeared to be of little concern at the time, but the rise of Obama and the later insinuation by some of the Clinton people that those results should count, created a firestorm of controversy that has not been assuaged by the decision not to re-vote.

It's only sensible that the Obama people would not want the results of the original contests to count (the senator was not even on the ballot in Michigan, although both were on in Florida), however their glee over the fact that two of the most important states in the union--ones with large electoral vote counts--will now have no say in determining the party's nominee, seems to fly in the face of their continued claims that the "will of the people" should supersede party politics.

It seems to me quite ironic and a bit hypocritical that the same Obama supporters who criticize Clinton for continuing her campaign and even considering using her super delegate advantage to gain the nomination at a brokered convention (which is her established right to do)--because it would replace the popular vote with the backroom decision of a few party big-wigs, have no problem with a few other officials disenfranchising the entire voting population of two key states, if it benefits their candidate.

We're not talking about just any states here. This is Michigan and... FLORIDA!! Remember Florida? Think those voters might have an effect on the outcome in November? If the Obama supporters are so concerned with the will of the people, and are so certain that that will lies with them, then why applaud the Florida and Michigan decisions? Could it be that they know their candidate lost both states the first time and don't want it to happen again? Could it be that he no longer has the wind at his back and doesn't want to face a possible Pennsylvania/Florida/Michigan train wreck?

Obama and his supporters' continual calls for Hillary to withdraw from the race are also puzzling. Last time I checked with President Gore, we still chose our president through the Electoral College, and we decided contested nominations through super delegates. These are the entrenched and traditional rules of the party and the nation, as much as the Obama supporters would like it to be otherwise.

The arrogance of a campaign that cannot mathematically lock-up the nomination before the convention and trails in super delegates, to continually call for it's opponent to concede because it's candidate might get to the convention with a slim lead in the popular vote--without Michigan and Florida no less--is just ridiculous and should cease.

Electoral votes, total votes and swing states--those are what win presidential elections--not number of small states won. So far, the only major electoral prizes Obama has captured outside of his home state of Illinois are four deeply conservative southern states that no Democrat has won in years (I'll leave it to you to decide whether the large percentage of African-American primary voters in those states played a major role in those victories or not). Meanwhile, Hillary has won the electoral and population behemoths of California, New York, New Jersey and Texas; won the huge and vital key state of Ohio and leads every poll in the last major swing state of Pennsylvania. There is no reason to believe she would not win re-votes in Florida and Michigan (Florida has the oldest voting population in the country and voted for her overwhelmingly with Obama on the ballot; while Michigan's population and demographics are mirror images of Ohio and Pennsylvania).

Florida and Michigan need to hold late national-party-funded primaries--the results are too important. Obama wins in those states would make it impossible for Hillary to garner enough super delegate support to block his nomination and broker the convention. Clinton victories, particularly if buffeted by a win in Pennsylvania, would potentially swing everything in her favor. Without real results from these states, Obama will have no claim to the true overall delegate lead, while still trailing in the super delegate count--pretty much forcing Clinton's hand and sending the nomination to those very super delegates.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Gonfalon Priquer on The General Defended:
"The Colin Powell debate seems to be sliding towards a playground scuffle. No one questions Powell's service to the nation as a military leader. However, like many, many Army officers I've known and worked with, Powell had an unwavering but blind loyalty to his patrons, the Bushes. He followed 41 to glory and 43 to ruin. Powell seems to have made his peace with his experience and shameful acts as secretary of state. The man had ambition and made his choices based on loyalty, not his own philosophies as a general. He's radioactive for national politics."
**********
Ken Hart on The General Defended:
"I don't quite see how Powell's military service makes him impervious to criticism for his role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. It's apples and oranges, folks. If anything, it makes his poor judgment all the more regrettable. He served his country well, then made personal loyalty to Bush his priority, and so his future ability to do any more good work on a national or globe scale is pretty much out the window."
**********
Shadowdancer on Colin Conversation Continues:
"Instead of mocking Colin Powell you should treat him with the honor and respect he deserves, (as well as any of our brave soldiers) for without them America would not be the free land it is today (I see you are already familiar with the “Freedom of Speech”). I’m not going to pretend that I know you personally; however the visage that you present is that of a pompous self-righteous ass."
**********
Mike Hart on More on Colin Powell...:
"Hillary Clinton's husband and President did not invade Iraq as Dubya did; he preferred to let the world's sanctions take their effect on Saddam and they were effective. Colin Powell was either totally duped by Cheney/Bush, etc. with his U.N presentation or he was somewhat complicit with it. So, he is either a fool or a war criminal accomplice. Pick one."
**********
Frank on Powell a Great VP Choice? Not Anymore:
"Let’s see now, if I followed your logic about Colin Powell being easily misled by Cheney and his nefarious gang of cohorts and therefore would be poor choice for vice president, I can only conclude (logically) that Hillary Clinton would be a poor choice for president because she was easily misled by the Bush administration."
**********
Ken Hart on As Dems Battle, McCain Eyes Powell/WH:
"Sure, Powell can take the high road and say that he meant well, but what does it say about the brains of McCain's veep choice if he could be misled so easily by Cheney, Tenet, and greedy opportunists like Chalabi and subsequently ruin his reputation before a global audience?"
**********
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

The General Defended

Posted by Shadowdancer
First I’d like to state that I am not, in ANY way, defending ANYTHING that Bush has done. In fact I find most (if not all) of Bush’s decisions to be both reprehensible and immoral. However, I agree with Frank’s reply and have a few things of my own to add…

Colin Powell has served this country for over 35 years and in that time rose to the rank of General. During this time he has: Earned countless medals and badges (including: the Purple Heart; Legion of Merit; Pathfinder Badge; Air Assault Badge; and the Presidential Medal of Freedom to name a few); Served in Vietnam and Korea; Became the National Security Advisor under the Reagan Administration; Became an Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath; Received several foreign awards and honors; As well as performing many other extraordinary acts. And now you’re trying to tell me just because he happened to be a part of the Bush administration his past accomplishments mean nothing?

Also, Mike Hart, it’s easy to pick apart someone else, but before you do I urge you to look at yourself and see what you've done that leaves such a meaningful impact on this world. Instead of mocking Colin Powell, you should treat him with the honor and respect he deserves, (as well as any of our brave soldiers) for without them America would not be the free land it is today (I see you are already familiar with the “Freedom of Speech”). I’m not going to pretend that I know you personally; however the visage that you present is that of a pompous self-righteous ass.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Colin Conversation Continues...

Posted by Mike Hart
Frank: What are you talking about? Your logic is so convoluted and makes no sense. Hillary Clinton's husband and President did not invade Iraq as Dubya did; he preferred to let the world's sanctions take their effect on Saddam and they were effective. Colin Powell was either totally duped by Cheney/Bush, etc. with his U.N presentation or he was somewhat complicit with it. So, he is either a fool or a war criminal accomplice. Pick one.

I agree with Ken in that all the Dems have to do is show his now ridiculous U.N. presentation -- with the drones, etc.--to discredit him. And, by the way, they should just attach McCain's "why not 100 years" (in Iraq) soundbite on every one of their ads against him.
And what did you mean by not letting history repeat itself? Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda--as in zero/zilch. It was also just proven--by the Pentagon--by virtue of 600,000 documents captured from Saddam. (See this link from "Countdown.")
Also, I do not see where anyone referred to you or other Bush defenders as "us morons."
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

More on Colin Powell...

Let’s see now, if I followed your logic about Colin Powell being easily misled by Cheney and his nefarious gang of cohorts and therefore would be poor choice for vice president, I can only conclude (logically) that Hillary Clinton would be a poor choice for president because she was easily misled by the Bush administration. Furthermore, Hillary had an advantage over the rest of “us morons” with the eight plus years as first lady and her time as a senator.

It also came to light recently that Saddam Hussein had greatly underestimated the United States' intention to attack Iraq. In fact, Hussein was playing a deadly game of cat and mouse with the UN inspectors that resulted in dire consequences for himself and his country. There is more to be disclosed. It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and cite a list of so called ‘935 plus lies’ whose sole purpose is to ridicule and attempt to define its own history rather than to be used as a tool to set the record straight so that history may not repeat itself. For this task we need serious unbiased individuals and not name-callers.
Posted by Frank
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Powell a Great VP Choice? Not Anymore

Posted by Ken Hart
Powell would have been a good GOP veep choice ... in 2000. Today, you'd have to question the wisdom of choosing anybody directly involved in the Bush Administration's cascade of 935+ lies leading up to the Iraq War. Powell has largely stayed out of the public eye since his resignation, and with good reason.

As McCain's running mate, he would be asked every day to defend his presentation to the United Nations -- the turning point in the invasion PR build-up.

Sure, Powell can take the high road and say that he meant well, but what does it say about the brains of McCain's veep choice if he could be misled so easily by Cheney, Tenet, and greedy opportunists like Chalabi and subsequently ruin his reputation before a global audience?

It's one thing for McCain to say that he supported the invasion but would have prosecuted it differently, but it's another thing to have a member of that invasion team on the ticket. The cons would outweigh the pros.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

As Dems Battle, McCain Eyes Powell and WH

Posted by Carter McCoy
It's really comical to watch everyone on the left bicker over which of their presumptive presidential nominees can tell the biggest lie about when they plan on having our troops out of Iraq or act more disingenuously shocked by the other's campaign tactics.

The arrogance of it is just stunning. It's so very reminiscent of the liberal intelligentsia's certainty that John Kerry would crush simpleton George W. Bush in 2004. Here was the weakest incumbent candidate in history and the Democrats couldn't figure out a way to beat him--even with the worst economy since the last Bush and a war without an end in sight.

This time around, they can't wait to pat themselves on the back every five minutes for being so progressive and propagating such groundbreaking candidates. Of course they have avoided the $10,000 question as consistently as possible--can either of these two agents of change beat John McCain in a general election?

All this talk about Republicans rebelling against McCain and either staying at home or crossing over to vote for Obama is also a media fantasy. Oh, yeah--the Bible belt will be turning out in droves to vote for the liberal black guy with the Muslim-sounding name. Don't even get me started on what they think of Hillary.

All of the liberal wishes in the world will not make McCain the doddering, tired Bob Dole they'd like to portray him as. McCain might be cranky at times and as conservative as Tom Delay on a lot of issues, but he is no stiff suit or media bumpkin. This is a guy who is as comfortable on The Daily Show as he is on Meet The Press, with more experience at the highest levels of government than Obama and Hillary combined, and a record of service to his country that is virtually unparalleled.

And he has not even used his trump card. If last weekend's Sunday morning gabfests are any indication, General Colin Powell is on the short list of people McCain is considering as a running mate. If the former Joint Chiefs chairman and Secretary of State has any interest of his own, that list will become very small, very fast--in fact it will no longer be a list at all.

So let the twin Democrat media darlings ponder whether they would make a great dream ticket and which one should top the bill. If McCain adds Powell to his team, that ticket will get punched for a one-way trip to second place, and it will be the GOP that makes history on Inauguration Day '09.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Obama's Veep Outrage

Obama's defensive reaction to Clinton's suggestion he serve as her vice president demonstrates her surge in the nominating process. For this story cycle, she's controlling the agenda and he's playing along.

I'm just baffled by MSM's declaration of war against Clinton. They act as if slash and burn politics have no place in the presidential selection process, that the candidates should just clasp hands and croon Kumbaya. Maybe MSM should Google 1988, 1972, 1964 and 1948 to learn that the winners take no prisoners.
Gonfalon Priquer
END OF POST

Read More......

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Frank on Press Treatment of Hillary/Obama:
"Yours is not a voice of reason as indicated by your article, but that of desperation. The Clintons are master manipulators who have underestimated their opponents by believing their own hype.

Hillary now has the gall to ask to have the credentials of the Florida and Michigan delegations reinstated. Hillary has won Florida but as for Michigan, she did not play by the rules and did not withdraw her name from the ballot as the other candidates did. Since she was the only name on the ballot for the Democratic Party she of course won the nomination. Now she wants all of Michigan's Democratic delegates to boot.

Bottom line, I think that Hillary has too much excess baggage to become president--it would be politics as usual. Also, if Bill and Hillary are not careful they will be instrumental in dragging down the Democratic Party even further. As for now I don't know if the Democratic Party would survive the spectacle of a brokered convention--where it would be, 'politics as usual'."
**********
Mike Hart on Clinton Press Treatment Unfair? Hardly:
"You again made some good points in your response to the article on Hillary's electability, but comparing her with Giuliani is not an apt comparison; Hillary has focused on the big electoral states and won them all, Giuliani stupidly ignored the early primaries and put everything into Florida and was trounced.

Equating Hillary with Laura Bush is also lame; even though she was not in cabinet meetings with Bill, you know she was briefed by him on everything (unlike Laura, I am sure, because I doubt if Bush is even briefed on everything and probably doesn't even want to be bothered) and has been involved with politics/causes her whole life (she is also much more intellectually accomplished).

As for the experience issue, maybe McCain beats her there, but not by much--she has been preparing for this run for years--that is why she got on all the major foreign policy/war committees. McCain overwhelms Obama in that regard.

Listen, I think Obama would do fine as President in dealing with foreign policy--what he does not know he would find out by conversing with top, intelligent people whom I am sure he would pick--but I know Hillary is more informed on EVERY issue than he is and that showed in the debates."
**********
Terry in Dallas on Press Treatment of Hillary/Obama:
"As usual, the Hillary haters want it both ways. They want you to believe that she was some kind of manipulative co-president when she was in the White House, but when she tries to use some of that experience as a qualification to hold the office, she is just the ex-president's wife trying to use sleeping in the same bed as an accomplishment. She just can't win."
**********
Ken Hart on Clinton Press Treatment Unfair? Hardly:
"My only point with the Laura Bush comment is to highlight the easily exploited weaknesses in Hillary's claim of her "experience" in better handling stressful situations. Based on what? The fact that Bill made the decisions and talked to her about it?

Keep in mind that I believe HRC is eminently qualified to be President and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat if she were the Democratic nominee, but she is making long-term headaches for herself and the party with that argument. McCain will wonder if she made these tough calls during her USO trip with Sinbad. Again, she has the intelligence and strength to make these calls, but she's gone overboard by using her "experience" to back it up."
**********
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

More on Hillary, Barack and the Press

After he co-opted them, the media assisted King George II in his 2000 coup of the presidency. But the mediots have raised the bar in 2008 with their Obama ass kissing. Maureen Dowd of the NYT has been portraying Hillary as an addled uber bitch for weeks. The Washington Post weighed in Sunday with this insidious commentary trash in covert Hillary bashing. Check it out here.
-Gonfalon Priquer

Now that Hillary has proclaimed her foreign policy superiority to the nation, she is being challenged on what she actually did. This was inevitable, and she should have foreseen it. Clumsy.
-Ken Hart

One note -- that the press declined to "mock" Hillary for not dropping out of the race after losing 11 states in a row hardly seems to constitute "cushy treatment" of her. She was still mathematically very much in the race, still neck and neck, with good prospects looming in Ohio and Texas and now Pennsylvania. And to suggest that the press treated her differently than they would've treated, say, Rudy Giuliani in the same situation, well, I don't know where you're coming from on that. Rudy was never in a similar situation. He spent millions and won one delegate.
-Ken Burch
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Clinton Press Treatment Unfair? Hardly

The following is a response to yesterday's commentary - "Press' Treatment of Clintons Fuels Obama; Hillary's "Unelectability" -- Don't Buy It". - SC

Posted by Ken Hart
Lots of anger here. More than that, lots of name-calling of other Democrats, as though anyone who thinks ill of the Clintons is being "ridiculous" or "naive." I don't understand the almost-Pavlovian rage that sparks in some people when the Clintons' tactics are challenged. Sure, many good things happened during Bill Clinton's administration ... but Bill isn't running. I know that Bill himself needs a reminder of this from time to time, but he's not running. And that makes a big difference.

And what about the "who do want answering that phone call at 3 a.m." nonsense? Think about this logically: If sharing a bed with the President of the United States for eight years makes you a foreign policy expert -- even though you didn't have the security clearance to sit in any of Bill's important meetings -- then hell, why hasn't the GOP nominated Laura Bush? This is the bind that Hillary has put herself in with this attack on Obama's credentials. Because now that she has set this standard for what makes someone more qualified to be President, then on every single score -- from Senate experience to foreign travel to life experiences -- John McCain beats her. Hands down.

Clearly, she didn't envision that when she launched the attack, but her campaign has been pretty shortsighted from the get-go, never thinking in the long term.

For instance, what could have possibly been thinking when she --not once but twice this week -- strongly implied that the GOP candidate is better qualified to be President than her fellow Democrat?

That's not the action of a "progressive" Democrat. That's the sort of party betrayal I expect from Joe Lieberman. If Obama had been playing footsie with his GOP opponent as much as Clinton has done this week, you'd be outraged. And rightfully so.

So again, what's with the blinders on the Clintons? You praise them for their tough, do-what-it-takes-to-win attitude ... but then you don't think they would ever play the race card? Bill knew what he was saying with the Jesse Jackson comment. He could've picked from a number of Democratic candidates who scored early victories, but he reached back 20 years ago to pick ... the black guy. By deliberately choosing to equate Obama with Jackson, Bill wanted to portray Obama as a fringe, black candidate with little hope of winning over the white voter ... and until this week, Obama has done pretty well on that score. (I believe he still scored about half of the white male vote in Ohio, which considering the lousy PR week he had, ain't too shabby.)

As for the press, they've played games with both sides for the sake of a good story. Obama was new and fresh; Hillary was a known quantity. And as a newspaper guy yourself, you know that the new stuff always makes for the better copy. Frankly, Hillary got a pretty cushy treatment during the month of February. Think about it: She lost 11 straight contests. Had she been, say, Rudy Giuliani, she would have been openly mocked in the press for refusing to get out of the race.

As for the right-wing religious nutjobs getting their minions to march in lockstep vs. Obama, two points: 1) They weren't successful in getting their followers to vote for GOP choice #1, Rudy. They hate McCain! 2) What, they would attack Obama ... but somehow go easier on Hillary? At best, this is a wash. There's no way most of those fanatics would vote for any Democrat.

In general, with regard to Hillary's electability, she probably would beat McCain -- and she should, especially if John "W." McCain continues to let Bush portray him as the candidate who will Stay The Course. But I'll say again that the GOP would love to run against her. Sure, Gore was a dope in 2000, but again, Bill Clinton isn't running. People, even Republicans, get weak at the knees around the Schmoozer-in-Chief (and that's a compliment -- he's damn talented), but I know quite a few moderate Republicans who are sane, rational people ... yet they go absolutely apeshit when Hillary's name is mentioned. And it seems the one thing that could unite a dispirited GOP votership is having their Antichrist, Hillary, as the opponent. Inexplicable.

Now is that rational? Is it fair to Hillary? No. But that's the way it is. People don't have the warm fuzzies for her like they do for Bill.

The best outcome that could come out of this tussle is that Obama gets to hone his "rapid response" team (which has been weak) and that any skeletons in Clinton's and Obama's closets come out now, rather than in August or September (which is why I'm concerned that Clinton seems to keep pushing off the release of her tax returns -- first, after Ohio & Texas, and now "mid-April," presumably after the Pennsylvania primary).
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Press' Treatment of Clintons Fuels Obama; Hillary's "Unelectability" --Don't Buy It

By Scott Cavanagh
Prior to the recent resurgence of the Hillary Clinton campaign, it was common to hear talk of how the Clintons were being out-maneuvered and out-campaigned by the Barack Obama people. While the Illinois senator and his supporters deserve much credit for their eleven-state winning streak and uncanny ability to attract large crowds of supporters and donors, the sudden nosedive of the Clinton campaign was started and perpetuated by a national media enamored with Obama and anxious to paint the Clintons as master manipulators.

It all began with the ridiculous overreaction to everything the Clintons said or did in the first racially volatile primary state of South Carolina. As soon as the tone was set that anything said about Obama would be analyzed for racial overtones, the slide had begun. Bill's "dream world" comment about Obama’s Iraq record had NOTHING to do with race--but the media ran with it all day. It was immediately clear that Hillary was going to be in trouble if anything happened to her African-American support, because if it eroded and things became ugly, Obama would not only go from 65% to 95% overnight with blacks--all of the hipster liberal white yuppies would just eat it all up and go along for the ride. Then, bam, bam, bam -- she makes a correct comment that MLK needed LBJ--they talk about racism. Bill points out correctly that black candidate Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice--and he's a racist. The Clintons were suddenly left without the constituency they had always been most comfortable with and could always count on--African-Americans.

Once that core base of black support for the Clintons was eroded by non-stories (can you imagine, after all the things that have been said about the Clintons--from calling him a murderer and drug lord to calling her a lesbian and Chelsea a dog--people are criticizing them for "going negative" with this harmless stuff?) the press smelled blood. Since then, every time any Clintonite makes any point about Obama's record, it is reported as the big, bad, evil Clinton machine tearing into poor Barack Obama. But I watch these stump speeches and such on C-SPAN all the time, and Obama rips on her every bit as much as she does on him--and it's rarely reported. When she points out that he has a thin resume and a health care plan that does not cover everyone, she is "going negative", but when he says lines like--"It's one thing to try to deliver health care and fail. It's another thing to actually get it done"—when he knows her opposition at that time was total and she was the only person championing the issue--there is never a peep from the press. When he claims that they (McCain and Hillary) are part of the same, old problems, which is--correctly and effectively--his strategy, it’s treated as just good campaigning, but when she points out their (McCain & Clinton) shared experience, she's somehow playing dirty. When he rips on her first Iraq vote--even though he did not have to cast one himself--it's fine, but when the Clintons point out that Obama removed a speech supporting the war effort from his web site in time to run for president, she's being shameful and petty and her husband is labeled a race-baiter.

Meanwhile, all of this plays right into the GOP’s hands. They have already constructed this Bogeyman in Hillary Clinton and have convinced everyone, including the gullible press, that they WANT to face her in the general election--because she has such high negatives and could not possibly carry certain states, particularly in the South. They WANT to face the Clintons? The same Clintons that beat them in ’92; that destroyed them in ’96; that walked out of the White House with a 65% approval rating AFTER they exposed his infidelity? Don’t buy it. This is the same stuff the Right did in 2000. When Al Gore was trying to close the deal against W in the waning weeks of that campaign, the Fox News Channels of the world continued to disingenuously debate whether it was wise for the vice president to use President Clinton on the stump— constantly posing questions like “With all of his personal baggage, would you really want Bill Clinton campaigning for you?” Gore fell for it hook, line and sinker--pulling the prez off his last southern swing—a snub that caused a lasting riff between the two. Gore ended up losing his home state of Tennessee and Arkansas by percentage points. A backslapping, story-telling Bubba would have been good for those votes in one afternoon, but he was on the sidelines.

No, the Republicans want no part of Hillary, and by convincing the public that she is unelectable and unethical (this push to make her look like some back room Boss Tweed because she might consider using the Super Delegate rules observed by the party for decades comes to mind) they have managed to diminish her and her husband in the eyes of naïve Democrats even more so than Republicans.

It's amazing how many of today's Johnny-come-lately Air America political geniuses have called into radio shows saying that they would not even vote if they had to vote for Hillary. What the hell is that? If this Democratic race had not become the back-biting thing that it has, with many Democrats now ripping much of the Clinton years (suddenly THEY now have troubles with eight years of peace and prosperity) the nominee, be it Obama or Hillary, would have been able to win simply off of the voters' basic understanding that things (particularly the economy) were better under eight years of Democratic control. It would simply be the Reagan mantra-- "Are you better off today, than eight years ago?"

Now Obama’s had his run and has supplanted Hillary as the likely nominee. Everyone is touting his special appeal that stretches across racial and ethnic divides and motivates young people like nobody since MLK, but let’s remember one thing—the arrows have not been directly aimed at him yet.

Barack Obama is now officially a liberal icon. The right will organize against this black man in a way even the Clintons have never seen. I just came back from five days in Alabama--and I can tell you from talking to a lot of people at my nephew and niece's sporting events and such that: A) Almost all of them believe he's a Muslim; B) They don't yet know his middle name; C) They liked the Clinton ECONOMY; D) Those good-old-boys actually like Clinton--because he's a big-haired chick-chasing scoundrel they can sympathize with. They have no such kinship to Obama. They thought Gore was a lispy-wimp, but they'd secretly like to BE Bubba. The Clintons always do better in the South than people anticipate.

As far as Obama's performance in predominantly white states is concerned--hardly anyone votes in primaries other than die-hard party people, and the Clintons are right that caucuses are a joke and reflect only the tiniest percentage of educated political junkies. Lets see how many regular folk votes Barack HUSSEIN Obama gets against war hero John McCain, without the eight years of peace and prosperity Hillary can point to—BJ and all. Of course, Obama won't have any of that to fall back on because he and his "this guy talks like a black JFK" crowd have been so busy disparaging the Clinton record it will be unusable artillery in the general election. He will be running on "I'm cool" and hoping that the youth vote that we always hear so much about but never shows up, comes out in droves. And if it does organize on the left, believe me, there will be a push in every mega church and tiny chapel throughout the entire Christian Right community to mobilize every single young voter against Obama--and those kids DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.

Still, we continue to hear that we have to nominate Obama because Hillary is unelectable, particularly in the South. How is this so? Hillary is unelectable in the South, but a black man, with a Kenyan father, admitted youthful drug problems, a paper-thin resume and the name Barack Hussein Obama is? The GOP is afraid of HILLARY--not Obama. That is why they have been so easy on him. He is going to face a shit storm like you would not believe after the convention--a storm the Clintons have faced and defeated time and time again. I personally like Obama, but I think we nominate this guy at our own risk.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Read More......

Iraq War Costs Top $500 Billion

With most of the country concentrating on primaries to determine our next president, the actions of the current one continue to bleed the nation's treasury dry. As we've noted each day (to the right), the Iraq War is costing nearly $13 billion every month. That total sat at roughly $350 billion when we started keeping track in July. Tonight it will top the $500 billion mark--$150 billion in less than eight months.

The war that George Bush said would cost the American taxpayer no more than $60 billion and Dick Cheney predicted would pay for itself, has now cost us a half-trillion dollars--that's TRILLION... with a "T". Five years, a half-trillion bucks, 33,000 dead and wounded soldiers and no end in sight. Now our own budget office estimates the total costs to eventually top $1.6 trillion, and we have more combat troops in Iraq than at any other time. This is the platform John McCain plans to run on?
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
END OF POST
Leave a Message

Read More......

Ohio/Texas Alamo-Hillary's Last Stand?

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
It seems like only a few weeks ago that Hillary Clinton was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and she and her husband the standard-bearers for the base of the party--the two voices that mattered the most. Wait a minute--that was only a few weeks ago.

Has anyone with the Clintons' reputation and accomplishments fallen quicker in the eyes of their own party than this unlikely collapse? Just how hard and embarrassing a tumble it turns out to be will be determined to a great extent today, when two of the remaining three states with sizeable delegate counts—Texas and Ohio—cast their votes.

This was all supposed to have been determined by Super Tuesday, and for all intent and purpose it was, unfortunately for Hillary and her supporters the determination reached was that Barack Obama was the face of the future and the new voice of the Democratic Party.

Now after 11 straight defeats and facing a seemingly insurmountable delegate deficit, the once mighty Clinton machine has erected it’s final firewalls—and even a win in the Buckeye State won’t be enough to change the tide without a surprising victory in her own little Alamo of Texas.

END OF POST

Leave a Comment

Read More......

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Frank on Ending the Cuban Embargo:
"I think that the American Cuban community fears that the immigration status of future Cuban refugees who successfully reach our shores (dry land) be changed from legal to illegal--not that it may matter much considering the current political debate or debacle, if you will, concerning immigration.

It also seems that we are the only country not exporting goods to Cuba. This strikes ire with our manufacturers and, especially, our farmers. So? Why not end the embargo? It's not like anyone will import nuclear missiles to Cuba any longer!?"
**********
Albert on Obama's Legislative Substance:
"The Obama spokesman in question was Kirk Watson, former mayor of Austin. Senator Clinton referred to Watson's embarrassing MSNBC interview in tonight's CNN debate in Texas."
**********
Ken Hart on Tim Russert's Debate Attacks:
"He went off the deep end last night. I used to think highly of him, but this was sheer grandstanding on his part. A quick search on Google News turns up similar articles today taking Russert to task, like this one here. I'm all for aggressive questioning of political candidates, but a) this was the wrong forum, and b) his line of questioning, especially regarding Farrakhan, was a Bizarro World version of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon."
**********
JohnT on Tim Russert's Debate Attacks:
"It's one thing to be simplistically confrontational on your own show, but to interject yourself into a national forum setup to allow candidates to debate each other on the issues that matter to voters is indeed going from gotcha to just plain insane.

I gotta hand it to both candidates for their composure. I would have told him to shove it. All he succeeded in doing was waste