OK - Keith Olbermann said he thought they both won, so I have to give him credit for that. BUT, he and his commentators keep bringing up Iraq and how Obama was SO much better at that. That being said, Rachel Maddow, who is BRILLIANT, btw (a Rhodes Scholar and PhD in Political Science), and has her own show on Air America, DID actually bring up that Obama HAS made mistakes in terms of Iraq, and Clinton could pummel him on it. Rachel is no Clinton supporter, though, a position she has stated quite clearly. She said she was driving around listening to Clinton talk abt her cote on the resolution prior to the vote, literally crying at her decision. I can totally appreciate that - I had the same response. So, it is PERSONAL for Rachel, which I get. But - BUT - she has made it clear she would not do that today, so stop beating a dead horse already. What's done is done - she can't unring the bell, but she can move forward. (How many more of these sayings can I get in here?) What else can she do? And did ANYONE know, besides Bush's core group, that Bush's FIRST response was war? She said that the White House ASSURED her PERSONALLY that they were going to let the weapons inspectors do their work. So, why should she have thought otherwise? I know, I know - because Bush was Bush, but just abt EVERYBODY was giving him WAY more leeway than they should have because of 9/11 (well, I wasn't, but hey - I never thought he should have been in there in the FIRST place...).
So, I do have to give Olbermann a little credit. It would be NICE, though, if whenever anyone mentioned Clinton's talking points, they would refrain from being patronizing abt them. Heaven knows, Obama has his own that he used tonight, too (Arianna Huffington and Candy Crawley used the phrase, "theme song" when referring to Clinton saying she was ready from Day 1, but Obama's being right from Day 1 was treated like it was the FIRST time he had ever said it!). Just sayin'! Anyway, thanks Keith for trying to be objective...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Debate Is Over...
And yes, I think Clinton won. Obama was much more cordial this time, but he still got in some jabs. Fortunately, Wolf Blitzer surprised the crap out of me and even called him on it. Clinton brought down the house though in response to a Politico question. This woman said that in her adult voting life, she had the choice of a Clinton or a Bush. Clinton said that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another Clinton to clean up after this Bush. The auditorium ERUPTED in laughter, and was te biggest applause moment of the night. It was pretty funny!
Of course, the pundits are all touting that Obama's big separation point from her is the Iraq War, continuing to ignore, as even Clinton pointed out tonight, that their policies have been the SAME since he got into the Senate.
And, she scored BIG points on the issue of Immigration. Specifically, Obama was tlaking about all of the work he and Sens. Kennedy and Durbin have done on Immigration together since he got in, clearly throwing out the Kennedy endorsement. Clinton responded that she had an Immigration Bill before the Senate in 2004 before Obama was even IN the Senate. So, that went pretty well for HER!
In terms of the Immigration Issue, I think both have landed at John Edwards' idea about how to deal with the undocumented workers in the country, and that is to GET them documented, FINE them for breaking the law, and put them on the path to citizenship (Obama NOW favors giving them driver's licenses, but he even wiggled around on that after Clinton spoke about HER plan. He then brought up her saying she would consider it before to which she responded that she wanted to support the NY governor, who was considering it, but she thought it was a bad idea. She reminded him that he had previously opposed it, so...In other words, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and they SURE shouldn't throw the FIRST one!! Ahem.).
And speaking of endorsements - again, at least on CNN, they mentioned the Ted/Caroline endorsements, but NOT the other half of the Kennedy Clan. Fortunately, Clinton mentioned it, and got a lot of applause on that, as well.
Overall, it was certainly less contentious, and once again, when Clinton actually gets to talk without being interrupted, she does pretty darn well!
Of course, now I made the mistake of switching to Countdown - goddess only knows why. They will take ANY opportunity over there on MSNBC to hammer away on something that happened a long time ago, when they keep claiming they like Obama because he is forward looking! Gee willikers, people!! LET IT GO!! She said she made a decision based on certain criteria at the time, and she had NO idea that Bush would go to war as the FIRST resort rather than the LAST resort, as most people did not...(And I wasn't happy with her decision at the time EITHER, but she has since acknowledged why, and what the problems were, and realized that things need to change NOW! She wants to pull the troops, and over 100,000 civilians there, beginning 60 days after she gets in, and hopefully, full withdrawal in a year. Obama says 16 months. So - she's got the plan to get it done sooner - sure would be nice if they focused on THAT!!!
Okey dokey - I reckon that's it. I thought she did a great job, she did not get distracted by his attacks, and focused on her policies. Couldn't ask for more!!
Of course, the pundits are all touting that Obama's big separation point from her is the Iraq War, continuing to ignore, as even Clinton pointed out tonight, that their policies have been the SAME since he got into the Senate.
And, she scored BIG points on the issue of Immigration. Specifically, Obama was tlaking about all of the work he and Sens. Kennedy and Durbin have done on Immigration together since he got in, clearly throwing out the Kennedy endorsement. Clinton responded that she had an Immigration Bill before the Senate in 2004 before Obama was even IN the Senate. So, that went pretty well for HER!
In terms of the Immigration Issue, I think both have landed at John Edwards' idea about how to deal with the undocumented workers in the country, and that is to GET them documented, FINE them for breaking the law, and put them on the path to citizenship (Obama NOW favors giving them driver's licenses, but he even wiggled around on that after Clinton spoke about HER plan. He then brought up her saying she would consider it before to which she responded that she wanted to support the NY governor, who was considering it, but she thought it was a bad idea. She reminded him that he had previously opposed it, so...In other words, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and they SURE shouldn't throw the FIRST one!! Ahem.).
And speaking of endorsements - again, at least on CNN, they mentioned the Ted/Caroline endorsements, but NOT the other half of the Kennedy Clan. Fortunately, Clinton mentioned it, and got a lot of applause on that, as well.
Overall, it was certainly less contentious, and once again, when Clinton actually gets to talk without being interrupted, she does pretty darn well!
Of course, now I made the mistake of switching to Countdown - goddess only knows why. They will take ANY opportunity over there on MSNBC to hammer away on something that happened a long time ago, when they keep claiming they like Obama because he is forward looking! Gee willikers, people!! LET IT GO!! She said she made a decision based on certain criteria at the time, and she had NO idea that Bush would go to war as the FIRST resort rather than the LAST resort, as most people did not...(And I wasn't happy with her decision at the time EITHER, but she has since acknowledged why, and what the problems were, and realized that things need to change NOW! She wants to pull the troops, and over 100,000 civilians there, beginning 60 days after she gets in, and hopefully, full withdrawal in a year. Obama says 16 months. So - she's got the plan to get it done sooner - sure would be nice if they focused on THAT!!!
Okey dokey - I reckon that's it. I thought she did a great job, she did not get distracted by his attacks, and focused on her policies. Couldn't ask for more!!
Letter of Support...
To Senator Clinton as she prepares for tonight's debate:
Dear Senator Clinton:
Congratulations on your outstanding victory in Florida! Despite every attempt by the so-called journalists and pundits to diminish your victory, the voters of Florida have spoken loud and clear. You worked for it, you deserved it, and you will be victorious again!
In anticipation of tonight's debate with your opponent, I would like to offer the following thought, presented by a colleague of mine in a sermon: Just because someone tosses you a hot rock does not mean you have to catch it.
You and I know that Obama will continue his ad hominem attacks upon you. I urge you to let them hang in the air, saying more about HIM than you. When he attacks your POLICIES, by all means, stand firm, and stand up for yourself. But make it clear tha OBAMA, with his spoken attacks, and his mailers full of blatant lies, is playing dirty. In other words, Obama is NO JFK. He violated the FLorida campaign pledge, and he has violated the pledge to keep this campaign a positive one. YOU, however, have continued to abide by the rules. Thank you.
I would also like to thank you for your VERY classy response to John Edwards. I can definitely see him having a place in your administration. I hope you can, too.
Good luck tonight!! Your supporters are with you!
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
Dear Senator Clinton:
Congratulations on your outstanding victory in Florida! Despite every attempt by the so-called journalists and pundits to diminish your victory, the voters of Florida have spoken loud and clear. You worked for it, you deserved it, and you will be victorious again!
In anticipation of tonight's debate with your opponent, I would like to offer the following thought, presented by a colleague of mine in a sermon: Just because someone tosses you a hot rock does not mean you have to catch it.
You and I know that Obama will continue his ad hominem attacks upon you. I urge you to let them hang in the air, saying more about HIM than you. When he attacks your POLICIES, by all means, stand firm, and stand up for yourself. But make it clear tha OBAMA, with his spoken attacks, and his mailers full of blatant lies, is playing dirty. In other words, Obama is NO JFK. He violated the FLorida campaign pledge, and he has violated the pledge to keep this campaign a positive one. YOU, however, have continued to abide by the rules. Thank you.
I would also like to thank you for your VERY classy response to John Edwards. I can definitely see him having a place in your administration. I hope you can, too.
Good luck tonight!! Your supporters are with you!
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
A Voter From Florida Responds...
My cousin, Ellen, sent me the following email from a friend of hers, Nu, in response to my blog. I gladly reprint it here:
Thanks-- I read her blog just now and I agree with her. I am supporting Hillary and proudly cast my vote for her yesterday! Of course I hope my vote counts-- I have been angry about the republican dominated legistlature that voted for early primary and caused this concern-- One person wrote a letter to the editor of the St Pete Times that said we should not ALLOW the DNC to make this decision and that we should go to the convention and DEMAND that our votes be counted! SO it should be interesting.
I was glad that Hillary did come to Florida last night to thank us. I am annoyed that Obama dissed us. Someone said (TV?) that he didn't campaign here so no wonder why he didn't win. BUT he did campain here via the ads on cable TV (annoying-all great me no substance). Obama has been getting a free ride from the press INMHO-- and this blogger mirrored my perceptions that he is not addressing the change-- but he is an inspiring speaker. I guess we should ask what change? Everyone is talking about change but what is it? Is it the perceptions of the listener? Remember the old Twilight Zone episode when the spacemen landed and brought us all hope. They gave us a book called "To Serve Man"and we all whooped and hollered and were so excited so then... they were all invited to the mother planet. Just as the main character boarded the ship, his friend the translator shouted out-- WAIT! IT IS A COOKBOOK! So when we hear change and get all excited about it-what kind of change would it be?
Well I am rambling too---What an intersting campaign-- It is a first so the Democrats will nominate either the first woman or the first Black (although he is really Bi-racial and has a half-sister who is Asian\Caucassian). How exciting!
Thanks-- I read her blog just now and I agree with her. I am supporting Hillary and proudly cast my vote for her yesterday! Of course I hope my vote counts-- I have been angry about the republican dominated legistlature that voted for early primary and caused this concern-- One person wrote a letter to the editor of the St Pete Times that said we should not ALLOW the DNC to make this decision and that we should go to the convention and DEMAND that our votes be counted! SO it should be interesting.
I was glad that Hillary did come to Florida last night to thank us. I am annoyed that Obama dissed us. Someone said (TV?) that he didn't campaign here so no wonder why he didn't win. BUT he did campain here via the ads on cable TV (annoying-all great me no substance). Obama has been getting a free ride from the press INMHO-- and this blogger mirrored my perceptions that he is not addressing the change-- but he is an inspiring speaker. I guess we should ask what change? Everyone is talking about change but what is it? Is it the perceptions of the listener? Remember the old Twilight Zone episode when the spacemen landed and brought us all hope. They gave us a book called "To Serve Man"and we all whooped and hollered and were so excited so then... they were all invited to the mother planet. Just as the main character boarded the ship, his friend the translator shouted out-- WAIT! IT IS A COOKBOOK! So when we hear change and get all excited about it-what kind of change would it be?
Well I am rambling too---What an intersting campaign-- It is a first so the Democrats will nominate either the first woman or the first Black (although he is really Bi-racial and has a half-sister who is Asian\Caucassian). How exciting!
Letter to Olbermann
I wrote this in response to the 1/30/08 broadcast of Countdown:
Could you POSSIBLY be LESS objective about Clinton and Obama?? A "self-declared victory" in Florida??? A RECORD number of Democrats turned out, and she won by a LANDSLIDE, not that you and your MSNBC cronies could EVER acknoweldge that! It was a HUGE victory, and NOT self-declared. The VOTERS declared it, Mr. Olbermann, NOT Senator Clinton. That is blatantly dismissive of her and her campaign. Sadly, what I have come to expect from MSNBC during this election.
WHY do you think John Edwards should endose Obama? Unlike Obama, Clinton did not just drop poverty into her speech like Obama did yesterday. She has been talking about poverty, about our troops, about services for our veterans and their families, for QUITE some time now. See, if you ever COVERED her rallies, you would KNOW she has been saying this for MONTHS. Her message is MUCH closer to Edwards in that she contains CONCRETE solutions!
By the way, nice that you didn't bother to mention the nasty flyers being distributed bu the Obama campaign in CT, filled with blatantly FALSE information regarding Clinton and her record when you discussed his improved poll numbers there. Or that maybe his numbers are high there because he stumped for LIEBERMAN, the foremer Democrat and Obama's mentor, against the ANTI-WAR Ned Lamont! But, hey - maybe if you started mentioning the attacks by Obama in his rallies, his very close connection to Lieberman, the snubs Obama has made toward Clinton, and the lack of actual CONTENT in his rally speeches, this would be an actual contest. Instead, it is the very clear annointment by you and many others at your network of someone who has not been the LEAST bit vetted by the media, which, by the way, IS YOUR JOB!!!!!! Not telling US for whom we should vote!!!!
When you could not even get out of your mouth that Clinton SMOKED Obama in Florida Tuesday night, I knew you had lost all objectivity. I guarantee you, if OBAMA had won, you would have been touting the Kennedy endorsement, the SC primary, etc., etc. How sad - not just for you, but for those of us who actually thought of you as a real journalist who could contain his own bias.
On the verge of being a former loyal viewer,
The Rev. Amy
IF anyone else wants to write, his email address is: countdown@msnbc.com.
Could you POSSIBLY be LESS objective about Clinton and Obama?? A "self-declared victory" in Florida??? A RECORD number of Democrats turned out, and she won by a LANDSLIDE, not that you and your MSNBC cronies could EVER acknoweldge that! It was a HUGE victory, and NOT self-declared. The VOTERS declared it, Mr. Olbermann, NOT Senator Clinton. That is blatantly dismissive of her and her campaign. Sadly, what I have come to expect from MSNBC during this election.
WHY do you think John Edwards should endose Obama? Unlike Obama, Clinton did not just drop poverty into her speech like Obama did yesterday. She has been talking about poverty, about our troops, about services for our veterans and their families, for QUITE some time now. See, if you ever COVERED her rallies, you would KNOW she has been saying this for MONTHS. Her message is MUCH closer to Edwards in that she contains CONCRETE solutions!
By the way, nice that you didn't bother to mention the nasty flyers being distributed bu the Obama campaign in CT, filled with blatantly FALSE information regarding Clinton and her record when you discussed his improved poll numbers there. Or that maybe his numbers are high there because he stumped for LIEBERMAN, the foremer Democrat and Obama's mentor, against the ANTI-WAR Ned Lamont! But, hey - maybe if you started mentioning the attacks by Obama in his rallies, his very close connection to Lieberman, the snubs Obama has made toward Clinton, and the lack of actual CONTENT in his rally speeches, this would be an actual contest. Instead, it is the very clear annointment by you and many others at your network of someone who has not been the LEAST bit vetted by the media, which, by the way, IS YOUR JOB!!!!!! Not telling US for whom we should vote!!!!
When you could not even get out of your mouth that Clinton SMOKED Obama in Florida Tuesday night, I knew you had lost all objectivity. I guarantee you, if OBAMA had won, you would have been touting the Kennedy endorsement, the SC primary, etc., etc. How sad - not just for you, but for those of us who actually thought of you as a real journalist who could contain his own bias.
On the verge of being a former loyal viewer,
The Rev. Amy
IF anyone else wants to write, his email address is: countdown@msnbc.com.
Ah, Come On!
I am a huge fan of Jon Stewart, and watch his show every night. Last night, he had on Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan staffer. Naturally, the departure of John Edwards from the race came up. And, like everyone else on tv, they started talking about how great it would be if he endorsed Obama, and if the presidency came down to McCain and Obama, two people of vision, integrity, blah, blah, blah.
OK - first of all, McCain is no visionary, and is certainly NOT the maverick he has been painted (or proclaimed himself) to be, not in the past 7 years anyway. We know he supports the war, he supports Bush, and his take on immigration is different from other Republicans. And this makes him a great choice for president WHY?? Dont get me wrong - what McCain has endured in his life is truly courageous and remarkable. But, he, too, is just a flawed man, who cheated on his wife and married his mistress. Oh - don't hear much about THAT, do you?? Nope.
And Obama. Obama who is ratcheting up his negative attacks on Clinton, sending out flyers in CT and other states filled with false information on Clinton's record (like that she supported NAFTA - Heeellllooooo - she wasn't even in the Senate when NAFTA passed!!!), etc., etc. And this is the media proclaimed savior?? Obama has told Edwards he wants his endorsement, even though the two are not particularly close. The NY Times said Edwards admires him, but I also saw yesterday (in Newsweek, I think it was) that the Obama campaign had spurned Edwards' attempts to contact Obama for THREE WEEKS recently. Now, all of a sudden, Obama has called him twice this week. Wow. Yeah, he's no politician. Cough, cough.
In full disclosure, Clinton, too, has been talking to Edwards, but apparently HAS been doing so fairly often. According to the same article referenced above (and I use the term loosely since it is not formally cited), Edwards has become impressed with Clinton, and the way she has run her campaign. That she has talked about many of the same issues all along, instead of throwing in poverty yesterday like Obama did, should put HER at the top of the list. IMHO, that is...
But for Jon Stewart to jump on this bandwagon makes me sad. Just one more person on tv piling on against Clinton. Not that I cannot take any criticism of Clinton, of course I can. I understand why some people don't want her running. But one thing you CAN say about Clinton is that there are NO surprises with her. She has been vetted, and scrutinized, more than any other candidate in this field, or in many campaigns. She has been under the microscope for YEARS now, and she continues to do good work despite it all.
So, Stewart wants a McCain v. Obama. I can see THAT at the first debate. McCain: "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served in the Navy with Jack Kennedy. Sir, you are NO Jack Kennedy!" And he is not. Not even close. Kennedy was, quite literally, battle-tested when he ran for president. Obama, not so much.
Sheesh - I don't wanna have to quit Stewart, either. But this, added to his truncating the video of Bill Clinton the other day over the "fairy tale" comment to make it LOOK like he was talking about Obama's whole candidacy (and Stewart had played the actual one before, which is what made this more eggregious), just seems to be more like the "pundits" at MSNBC and CNN - "All Hail Obama!" And more of the seemingly incessant twisting of the facts to build up the media darling. Yuck. No, thanks.
(More on the whole Edwards thing - at Clinton's site, www.hillaryclinton.com, people were commenting on her statement about John and Elizabeth Edwards. The outpouring of support for the Edwards', and the appreciation for Clinton's repsectful statement, were really touching. MANY people mentioned that she should have Edwards in her Administration, something I have said for some time. I have long said I think he would make an outstanding Sec. of Labor. Anyway, it was a tad different from the comments at the Obama camp, where the very first entry was an attack on Clinton. Oh, yeah - that Obama is a real uniter, all right. Seems like he has more in common with our CURRENT "uniter." Ahem.)
OK - first of all, McCain is no visionary, and is certainly NOT the maverick he has been painted (or proclaimed himself) to be, not in the past 7 years anyway. We know he supports the war, he supports Bush, and his take on immigration is different from other Republicans. And this makes him a great choice for president WHY?? Dont get me wrong - what McCain has endured in his life is truly courageous and remarkable. But, he, too, is just a flawed man, who cheated on his wife and married his mistress. Oh - don't hear much about THAT, do you?? Nope.
And Obama. Obama who is ratcheting up his negative attacks on Clinton, sending out flyers in CT and other states filled with false information on Clinton's record (like that she supported NAFTA - Heeellllooooo - she wasn't even in the Senate when NAFTA passed!!!), etc., etc. And this is the media proclaimed savior?? Obama has told Edwards he wants his endorsement, even though the two are not particularly close. The NY Times said Edwards admires him, but I also saw yesterday (in Newsweek, I think it was) that the Obama campaign had spurned Edwards' attempts to contact Obama for THREE WEEKS recently. Now, all of a sudden, Obama has called him twice this week. Wow. Yeah, he's no politician. Cough, cough.
In full disclosure, Clinton, too, has been talking to Edwards, but apparently HAS been doing so fairly often. According to the same article referenced above (and I use the term loosely since it is not formally cited), Edwards has become impressed with Clinton, and the way she has run her campaign. That she has talked about many of the same issues all along, instead of throwing in poverty yesterday like Obama did, should put HER at the top of the list. IMHO, that is...
But for Jon Stewart to jump on this bandwagon makes me sad. Just one more person on tv piling on against Clinton. Not that I cannot take any criticism of Clinton, of course I can. I understand why some people don't want her running. But one thing you CAN say about Clinton is that there are NO surprises with her. She has been vetted, and scrutinized, more than any other candidate in this field, or in many campaigns. She has been under the microscope for YEARS now, and she continues to do good work despite it all.
So, Stewart wants a McCain v. Obama. I can see THAT at the first debate. McCain: "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served in the Navy with Jack Kennedy. Sir, you are NO Jack Kennedy!" And he is not. Not even close. Kennedy was, quite literally, battle-tested when he ran for president. Obama, not so much.
Sheesh - I don't wanna have to quit Stewart, either. But this, added to his truncating the video of Bill Clinton the other day over the "fairy tale" comment to make it LOOK like he was talking about Obama's whole candidacy (and Stewart had played the actual one before, which is what made this more eggregious), just seems to be more like the "pundits" at MSNBC and CNN - "All Hail Obama!" And more of the seemingly incessant twisting of the facts to build up the media darling. Yuck. No, thanks.
(More on the whole Edwards thing - at Clinton's site, www.hillaryclinton.com, people were commenting on her statement about John and Elizabeth Edwards. The outpouring of support for the Edwards', and the appreciation for Clinton's repsectful statement, were really touching. MANY people mentioned that she should have Edwards in her Administration, something I have said for some time. I have long said I think he would make an outstanding Sec. of Labor. Anyway, it was a tad different from the comments at the Obama camp, where the very first entry was an attack on Clinton. Oh, yeah - that Obama is a real uniter, all right. Seems like he has more in common with our CURRENT "uniter." Ahem.)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Let Me Get This Straight...
Obama signs a pledge to not campaign in Florida, then has radio and tv ads air there. Obama signs a pledge to run a positive campaign, and continues to include ad hominem attacks on Clinton. There is an article right now about him calling Clinton divisive, and mocking a line from her standard rally speech. Add this to his SOTU snub, the attacks in the last debate, the two NEGATIVE responses after she beat him in NH and FL (because you know - if she wins, then the Clinton Machine must have done SOMETHING to steal the vote. If HE wins, it is because the people are speaking. Grrr.), along with his patronizing comments to her, and it paints a pretty negative picture to me. He continues to break campaign promises, but is NOT being held accountable (I tell ya - they will ream CLINTON for sending him a memo about breaking the "positive campaign pledge," and totally excuse his behavior).
I am so sick of hearing crap from him. The two rallies I have personally attended, as well as the one I just watched on CNN.com, I ASSURE you, not one time did Clinton EVER make a negative remark about Obama. She talks about the ISSUES: health care, interest rate caps, bringing people out of poverty (yes, even before her commitment to Edwards to do so), making sure that veterans and their families have the services they need after returning from war, etc., etc. Nary an attack on Obama.
Since Obama is all talk and no action, I guess it makes sense that he has to turn to attacking Clinton instead of talking about the issues. And, with the media's lack of true journalism, he knows he can get away with it.
I still don't get it - why are these young people and progressives so enamored of him?? Is it because NO ONE in the media is talking about his relationship to Lieberman? Because they didn't really want to believe what he said about Reagan so they twisted around what he said so they wouldn't have to really accept what he said? I don't get it. Someone explain it to me, and not in an Anti-Clinton kind of way. Please!
I am so sick of hearing crap from him. The two rallies I have personally attended, as well as the one I just watched on CNN.com, I ASSURE you, not one time did Clinton EVER make a negative remark about Obama. She talks about the ISSUES: health care, interest rate caps, bringing people out of poverty (yes, even before her commitment to Edwards to do so), making sure that veterans and their families have the services they need after returning from war, etc., etc. Nary an attack on Obama.
Since Obama is all talk and no action, I guess it makes sense that he has to turn to attacking Clinton instead of talking about the issues. And, with the media's lack of true journalism, he knows he can get away with it.
I still don't get it - why are these young people and progressives so enamored of him?? Is it because NO ONE in the media is talking about his relationship to Lieberman? Because they didn't really want to believe what he said about Reagan so they twisted around what he said so they wouldn't have to really accept what he said? I don't get it. Someone explain it to me, and not in an Anti-Clinton kind of way. Please!
Pressure on Edwards?
OK - so once again, without any thought to using FACTS, the pundits are at it again about to whom Edwards will through his support. David Gergen pontificated that it would most likely be Obama, as did others. Well, the actual responses from a poll of Edwards supporters went more for Clinton (40%), then Obama (25%), and the rest undecided. These media people are just so willing to throw any and all support to Obama with NO reasoning whatsoever. What the heck already?? I might add, CNN.com and MSNBC.com had an "Obama's statement to Edwards" link, with NOTHING from Clinton. She DID make one - it was read on tv, but good freakin' luck trying to find it now!!
I have noticed more of a backlash in comments to these stories, though. People are getting sick and tired of the media piling on Clinton (even the ONE headline about her winning Florida by a LOT was, "Hillary Trumpets Victory." Excuse me?? "Trumpets"??? And if OBAMA had won, would they have used the same word? As they say on Scrubs, "Hell to the no!"), and think this whole media darling blathering will backfire for him.
All I can say is I HOPE Edwards does through his support to Clinton. She DOES have a proven track record on the issues most important to Edwards. Until then, I'll have to keep sifting through all of the "All Hail, Obama!" of the mainstream media to catch any little crumb of information on Clinton.
I have noticed more of a backlash in comments to these stories, though. People are getting sick and tired of the media piling on Clinton (even the ONE headline about her winning Florida by a LOT was, "Hillary Trumpets Victory." Excuse me?? "Trumpets"??? And if OBAMA had won, would they have used the same word? As they say on Scrubs, "Hell to the no!"), and think this whole media darling blathering will backfire for him.
All I can say is I HOPE Edwards does through his support to Clinton. She DOES have a proven track record on the issues most important to Edwards. Until then, I'll have to keep sifting through all of the "All Hail, Obama!" of the mainstream media to catch any little crumb of information on Clinton.
So Long, Senator Edwards...
Along with many others, I was shocked and saddened to see Senator Edwards suspend his candidacy for the presidency. While I am clearly a Clinton supporter, I admire Senator Edwards, and have supported his campaign financially as well. I have written him the following letter.
I urge anyone who might be reading this who is also a Clinton supporter, or an Edwards supporter considering switching to Senator Clinton, to also write Senator Edwards. I have provided the link to do so below.
Dear Senator Edwards:
I am so disappointed that you have decided to suspend your candidacy for president. As a fellow North Carolinian (who has lived all over, and has settled down below Charleston, SC), I share many of your concerns. I thank you for bringing the issues of poverty, homelessness among our veterans, and emphasis on health care for all to this contest. Even though I have decided to support Senator Clinton for president, I have continued to contribute to your campaign as recently as yesterday, as I wanted your voice to be heard loud and clear for those whom you represent.
I know that MANY Obama supporters will be asking you to throw your support to their candidate, but I URGE you to consider supporting Senator Clinton. Her health care package is VERY close to yours; she has shown unwavering suport for our troops, and speaks at every rally about supporting them, AND their families, when they return from war; and she already talks about the issues of poverty facing our nation. In other words, she holds the same concerns YOU do, and has a proven track record supporting those ideas. Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee alone is indicative of her commitment to our troops. I ask you, sir, to please give her your support so that the issues that are near and dear to your heart, and mine, will be addressed by ACTIONS, and not just words.
I also want to say how mch I will miss hearing from your wife, Elizabeth. To be totally honest, if SHE was running for president, I would vote for her in a skinny second. Her intelligence, her courage, her warmth, her humor, her compassion, her commitment to social justice, to mention a few, place her in a league above many of the politicians now in Washington. I pray that she is blessed with good health, and has many, many more years upon this earth.
So to you and your family, I wish you the best, Senator. I am saddened that you are suspending your candidacy, but I assure you - YOUR voice, and those for whom you speak, HAS been heard. We will continue to fight for those who are less fortunate.
Thank you for your service to this country.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
http://www.johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/
I urge anyone who might be reading this who is also a Clinton supporter, or an Edwards supporter considering switching to Senator Clinton, to also write Senator Edwards. I have provided the link to do so below.
Dear Senator Edwards:
I am so disappointed that you have decided to suspend your candidacy for president. As a fellow North Carolinian (who has lived all over, and has settled down below Charleston, SC), I share many of your concerns. I thank you for bringing the issues of poverty, homelessness among our veterans, and emphasis on health care for all to this contest. Even though I have decided to support Senator Clinton for president, I have continued to contribute to your campaign as recently as yesterday, as I wanted your voice to be heard loud and clear for those whom you represent.
I know that MANY Obama supporters will be asking you to throw your support to their candidate, but I URGE you to consider supporting Senator Clinton. Her health care package is VERY close to yours; she has shown unwavering suport for our troops, and speaks at every rally about supporting them, AND their families, when they return from war; and she already talks about the issues of poverty facing our nation. In other words, she holds the same concerns YOU do, and has a proven track record supporting those ideas. Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee alone is indicative of her commitment to our troops. I ask you, sir, to please give her your support so that the issues that are near and dear to your heart, and mine, will be addressed by ACTIONS, and not just words.
I also want to say how mch I will miss hearing from your wife, Elizabeth. To be totally honest, if SHE was running for president, I would vote for her in a skinny second. Her intelligence, her courage, her warmth, her humor, her compassion, her commitment to social justice, to mention a few, place her in a league above many of the politicians now in Washington. I pray that she is blessed with good health, and has many, many more years upon this earth.
So to you and your family, I wish you the best, Senator. I am saddened that you are suspending your candidacy, but I assure you - YOUR voice, and those for whom you speak, HAS been heard. We will continue to fight for those who are less fortunate.
Thank you for your service to this country.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
http://www.johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/
My Note to John Kerry
Dear Senator Kerry:
I was SHOCKED by you comments this morning regarding the primary in FL not being a "legitimate race." EXCUSE ME?? Are you SO blinded by the limelight of Obama that you are willing to disenfranchise the VOTES of 1.5 MILLION Democrats?? How dare you, sir! How DARE you denigrate their RIGHT as AMERICANS to cast their votes for the presidential candidate! I have NO doubt that had your candidate won, rather than losing by a LANDSLIDE, you would be singing a different tune.
And by the way, despite yours and other Obama supporters unwillingness to acknowledge the truth, OBAMA violated the pledge by running tv and radio ads IN Florida! He CAMPAIGNED there, and STILL lost by a landslide!!
Finally, for you to castigate Senator Clinton for thanking her supporters AFTER the polls closed is reprehensible.
I have lost ALL respect for you. You have lost ALL objectivity
I was SHOCKED by you comments this morning regarding the primary in FL not being a "legitimate race." EXCUSE ME?? Are you SO blinded by the limelight of Obama that you are willing to disenfranchise the VOTES of 1.5 MILLION Democrats?? How dare you, sir! How DARE you denigrate their RIGHT as AMERICANS to cast their votes for the presidential candidate! I have NO doubt that had your candidate won, rather than losing by a LANDSLIDE, you would be singing a different tune.
And by the way, despite yours and other Obama supporters unwillingness to acknowledge the truth, OBAMA violated the pledge by running tv and radio ads IN Florida! He CAMPAIGNED there, and STILL lost by a landslide!!
Finally, for you to castigate Senator Clinton for thanking her supporters AFTER the polls closed is reprehensible.
I have lost ALL respect for you. You have lost ALL objectivity
John Kerry
I just read a NY Times article on Hillary Clinton's win in Florida. In it was the following: "The bottom line is that Florida does not offer any delegates," said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president. "It is not a legitimate race."
Excuse me?? Is he going to tell 1.5 MILLION voters in Florida that their voices don't COUNT? Further, this continued denigration of Clinton for WINNING it, and for going to thank her supporters AFTER THE POLLS WERE CLOSED is reprehensible!! NONE of the Obama people acknowledge that HE BROKE THE RULES by running ads in Florida, an action that was expressly forbidden by the pledge he took. Not ONE of the Obama people have admitted that - they are too busy jumping all over Clinton for thanking her supporters. And if she DIDN'T go to Florida? Oh, you know - the same crapola she got abt leaving SC, "I can't BELIEVE she didn't thank ALL of those Florida voters who came out even though they won't get any delegates, " blah, blah, blah.
I hate that I ever even voted for John Kerry - didn't like him much then, and REALLY don't like him now. He's just hanging on to the popular guy's coattails, hoping to get his name in the limelight.
I wonder what he's going to do when he needs Clinton's help on a bill after the way he is trashing her? I hope she takes apage from Cheney's playbook on the Senate floor...
Excuse me?? Is he going to tell 1.5 MILLION voters in Florida that their voices don't COUNT? Further, this continued denigration of Clinton for WINNING it, and for going to thank her supporters AFTER THE POLLS WERE CLOSED is reprehensible!! NONE of the Obama people acknowledge that HE BROKE THE RULES by running ads in Florida, an action that was expressly forbidden by the pledge he took. Not ONE of the Obama people have admitted that - they are too busy jumping all over Clinton for thanking her supporters. And if she DIDN'T go to Florida? Oh, you know - the same crapola she got abt leaving SC, "I can't BELIEVE she didn't thank ALL of those Florida voters who came out even though they won't get any delegates, " blah, blah, blah.
I hate that I ever even voted for John Kerry - didn't like him much then, and REALLY don't like him now. He's just hanging on to the popular guy's coattails, hoping to get his name in the limelight.
I wonder what he's going to do when he needs Clinton's help on a bill after the way he is trashing her? I hope she takes apage from Cheney's playbook on the Senate floor...
I DO Know How To Quit You...
Stephanie Miller! Let me say - again - that I have been a HUGE supporter of Stephanie Miller, have listened to her FAITHFULLY. She is a major Obama supporter, and her shows have essentially become one long advertisement for him. It has become intolerable, especially after her response to the caller below, and her essnetially saying that Hillary neds to play by the rules of the Pledge, EVEN THOUGH OBAMA ALREADY VIOLATED IT!!! (And again, in case anyone is wondering, it is SOP for the DNC to organize a committee to hear appeals about the designation of delegates. As I said last night, I do not want ONE of my fellow citizens to be disenfranchised of their vote, much less two whole states' worth. But, since Obama LOST SO BADLY to Hillary, the Obama supporters are trashing Hillary for wanting to reinstate the delegates from MI and FL. Had Obama WON, you bet your LIFE that Stephanie would be demanding, along with ALL the other Obama people, that the DNC give out those delegates! So freakin' hypocritical.) Anywho - this is what happened:
But just now, this morning, an Edwards supporter called and said that he had YET for an Obama supporter to tell him just what CHANGE Obama was going to bring, that he ALWAYS talks in generalities, and no one can answer his question. He went on to say that Obama stumped for LIEBERMAN, that wolf in sheep's clothing, in CT in 2006 (and Obama has said Lieberman is his mentor. Lieberman is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican war hawk.). HE STUMPED FOR LIEBERMAN AGAINST THE ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT, NED LAMONT!!!!! Obama, the one who keeps claiming he was against the war from the beginning (even though he voted for funding ever since he was in the Senate).
Stephanie's response? "Are you saying Hillary is any less right-wing than Obama?" Note, she did NOT ANSWER THE GUY'S QUESTION, and immediately turned it into an attack on Hillary. So, Stephanie, I do know how to quit you - I turned you off. Sad day for me, but I am sick and tired of the constant cheerleading and dismissal of the REAL issues surrounding Obama.
HOW is it that Obama is appealing to all of these young progressives?? Because NO ONE IS LOOKING AT HIS RECORD AND ACTIONS!!
After last night, when Obama could not even muster a cursory "Congrats, Hillary" after her LANDSLIDE Florida win, and his BLATANT snub of her at the SOTU addres, I am having serious thoughts about if I can even vote for this man. He cannot show his Democratic opponent the least bit of civility. Sure makes one wonder how he'll deal with people like, I dunno, say, Kim Jong Il?!?!?!?
But just now, this morning, an Edwards supporter called and said that he had YET for an Obama supporter to tell him just what CHANGE Obama was going to bring, that he ALWAYS talks in generalities, and no one can answer his question. He went on to say that Obama stumped for LIEBERMAN, that wolf in sheep's clothing, in CT in 2006 (and Obama has said Lieberman is his mentor. Lieberman is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican war hawk.). HE STUMPED FOR LIEBERMAN AGAINST THE ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT, NED LAMONT!!!!! Obama, the one who keeps claiming he was against the war from the beginning (even though he voted for funding ever since he was in the Senate).
Stephanie's response? "Are you saying Hillary is any less right-wing than Obama?" Note, she did NOT ANSWER THE GUY'S QUESTION, and immediately turned it into an attack on Hillary. So, Stephanie, I do know how to quit you - I turned you off. Sad day for me, but I am sick and tired of the constant cheerleading and dismissal of the REAL issues surrounding Obama.
HOW is it that Obama is appealing to all of these young progressives?? Because NO ONE IS LOOKING AT HIS RECORD AND ACTIONS!!
After last night, when Obama could not even muster a cursory "Congrats, Hillary" after her LANDSLIDE Florida win, and his BLATANT snub of her at the SOTU addres, I am having serious thoughts about if I can even vote for this man. He cannot show his Democratic opponent the least bit of civility. Sure makes one wonder how he'll deal with people like, I dunno, say, Kim Jong Il?!?!?!?
HOLY COW!!!
You would NEVER know by looking at the papers (Post and Courier, Charleston, SC, the front page of AOL, the front page of MSNBC.com, or CNN.com, that Hillary won Florida, and won is BIG!! There is one little (offensive) tagline on CNN.com that Hillary was "trumpeting her win in Florida, even though there were no delegates at stake". EXCUSE ME??? If this had been Edwards, and ESPECIALLY if it had been OBAMA, he would have been on the front page, they would be talking about him endlessly, claiming his LANDSLIDE victory was the result of Ted Kennedy's endorsement, and on and on and on. Hillary? Nothing.
Now John Edwards is pulling out of the race. I am going to be REALLY angry if he gives his delegates to Obama. Obama has everyone else in his hip pocket already, it would seem - he sure doesn't need any MORE support!
How many times, how many ways, can I say I am SICK AND TIRED of the way the media treats her?? Do not tell me there isn't some MAJOR sexism going on here, too. It isn't ALL about her being a Clinton. (The whole issue with Chris Matthews bears that out.)
FRUSTRATING!!
Now John Edwards is pulling out of the race. I am going to be REALLY angry if he gives his delegates to Obama. Obama has everyone else in his hip pocket already, it would seem - he sure doesn't need any MORE support!
How many times, how many ways, can I say I am SICK AND TIRED of the way the media treats her?? Do not tell me there isn't some MAJOR sexism going on here, too. It isn't ALL about her being a Clinton. (The whole issue with Chris Matthews bears that out.)
FRUSTRATING!!
An Email Exchange With My Brother
A caveat up front - my brother would have loved an Edwards/Kucinich ticket:
1/26/08: You know, here's the thing - seeing Hillary speak in person, and listening to what she says is VERY different from the way the media portray her, and I don't just mean Fox Noise, though they are the worst. MOST of the media ratchet up this whole thing abt how divisive she is, blah, blah, blah, meanwhile, she has worked across the aisle a lot, including with one of our senators here, to get things done. Her commitment to women and children began a LONG time ago (she worked for the Children's Defense Fund when she got out of law school, which she paid for herself, btw). I might add, I think all of these men who keep bitching abt her tone of voice are sexist as hell. NO ONE could get away with saying crap like that abt a person of color, for instance. The reason her voice is higher than anyone else's is BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!! Ahem. Anywho - I think the rhetoric against her has been tremendous, and she has to fight against THAT, along with other Dems and Republicans (she was quite the topic of conversation at the REPUBLICAN debate the other night).
As far as the war goes, well, Bush didn't have any combat experience either, and you don't have to have combat experience to get OUT of a war. Her close friend, General Wesley Clark, who HAS been in battle as well as DIRECTING battles, can help her figure out how to prudently withdraw our troops and the over 100,000 American civilians in Iraq. I think that would go well enough in a debate. I think if she had Jim Webb run as her VP, she would do quite well. And I think Edwards (whom I like A LOT) would make an outstanding Sec. of Labor. (He had said that if McCain is the nominee, he would be able to tout his ar experience. He can do that to Obama, too...)
And I disagree abt McCain. He is no maverick. He has sided with Bush up one side and down the other, capitulating at every turn. I think the Clintons could use PLENTY of examples to prove that. If this was 8 yrs ago, I would agree with you, but he has really changed - like Colin Powell did. He has flip flopped continuously of late, and keeps ratcheting up the war, despite wht the GENERALS are saying, even in the same week. I don't think that is going to fly with the majority of people now. IMHO, that is! (My brother responded that, absolutely, McCain is NO maverick, and that he has prostituted hismself to this administration.)
Obama has been a disappointment to me of late. His ad hominem attacks, andconstant revisionist history, has been hard to take. I have seen the video, as well as the transcript, abt what he said abt Reagan and the Rep. Party. His attacking Hillary on her mentioning what he said was pretty pathetic. If he can't take criticism from other Dems, how the HELL is he going to take it from the REPS??? Just sayin'!
1/26/08: No doubt, by now, you have heard the results of our voting down here. I failed to ask you why you are not an Obama fan. I admit, I thought you would be. Had we been hanging out having this discussion, it probably would have been one of the FIRST questions I asked!! You know how that goes...
Anyway, here are a few thoughts I have on him. One of his main strengths is as a gifted orator, no doubt abt it. The first time I saw him speak, I knew he was a rising star in the Dem. Party. That being said, I really hope the media starts to hold him accountable for some of the things he says, and things he DOESN'T say. He is GREAT with generalities, but not so much with particulars. And he does NOT like being held accountable, like for his Reagan comment in Nevada, nor for his 17 (20) yr friendship with Tony Rezko, a HUGE contributor to his campaigns since the beginning, and who helped him buy his houses for less, or for having the exact same voting record on Iraq as Clinton does. When confronted, he lashes out, and when others fight back, THEY get the negative press. Go figure. As I've said, I like him generally, but I have concerns abt him. He can give great speeches, though - no doubt. Not as good of a speaker in, say, debates. IMHO, that is. And it was his inability to think as quickly on his feet, or to not seem to have a firm grasp on issues of national security and other policy issues that led me to Clinton.
All of that being said, Kucinich is the one with whom I share MANY similar beliefs. I do not know why he is not taken more seriously in this country, though he got basically NO media coverage, when everyone else was getting at least some (Edwards suffers this same fate a lot, too, I think). It is a telling commentary, I think. And MANY people kept saying they agreed with him, but didn't think he was electable, so went with someone else (Meliisa Etheridge told him that she would keep voting for him until he became president!!). I am guilty of that, too. It isn't just his looks - goddess knows, Bush is no great shakes. So, just wondering.
And along THOSE lines, I am (so) sick and tired of the media deciding who the nominees are going to be. They seem to be doing the same crap they did to Gore and Kerry, and it is REALLY frustrating. Even people I LIKE, like Keith Olbermann, does it (to far lesser degrees than, say, Fox Noise or CNN). On MSNBC, for example, Obama is their man, and they have made that abundantly clear. I do not think that is their job - to tell us who we should want as our nominee. I know - I'm so naive. But their lack of investigation into statements is staggering. I don't know how that gets changed. Seriously, though - HOW is the media brought to account?? Like all of the lies Bush and Powell told to get us into Iraq, that the media just regurgitated - how do we get an actual MEDIA, which engages in JOURNALISM, and not simply reprinting the press releases from, say, Bush?
1/26/08: You know, here's the thing - seeing Hillary speak in person, and listening to what she says is VERY different from the way the media portray her, and I don't just mean Fox Noise, though they are the worst. MOST of the media ratchet up this whole thing abt how divisive she is, blah, blah, blah, meanwhile, she has worked across the aisle a lot, including with one of our senators here, to get things done. Her commitment to women and children began a LONG time ago (she worked for the Children's Defense Fund when she got out of law school, which she paid for herself, btw). I might add, I think all of these men who keep bitching abt her tone of voice are sexist as hell. NO ONE could get away with saying crap like that abt a person of color, for instance. The reason her voice is higher than anyone else's is BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!! Ahem. Anywho - I think the rhetoric against her has been tremendous, and she has to fight against THAT, along with other Dems and Republicans (she was quite the topic of conversation at the REPUBLICAN debate the other night).
As far as the war goes, well, Bush didn't have any combat experience either, and you don't have to have combat experience to get OUT of a war. Her close friend, General Wesley Clark, who HAS been in battle as well as DIRECTING battles, can help her figure out how to prudently withdraw our troops and the over 100,000 American civilians in Iraq. I think that would go well enough in a debate. I think if she had Jim Webb run as her VP, she would do quite well. And I think Edwards (whom I like A LOT) would make an outstanding Sec. of Labor. (He had said that if McCain is the nominee, he would be able to tout his ar experience. He can do that to Obama, too...)
And I disagree abt McCain. He is no maverick. He has sided with Bush up one side and down the other, capitulating at every turn. I think the Clintons could use PLENTY of examples to prove that. If this was 8 yrs ago, I would agree with you, but he has really changed - like Colin Powell did. He has flip flopped continuously of late, and keeps ratcheting up the war, despite wht the GENERALS are saying, even in the same week. I don't think that is going to fly with the majority of people now. IMHO, that is! (My brother responded that, absolutely, McCain is NO maverick, and that he has prostituted hismself to this administration.)
Obama has been a disappointment to me of late. His ad hominem attacks, andconstant revisionist history, has been hard to take. I have seen the video, as well as the transcript, abt what he said abt Reagan and the Rep. Party. His attacking Hillary on her mentioning what he said was pretty pathetic. If he can't take criticism from other Dems, how the HELL is he going to take it from the REPS??? Just sayin'!
1/26/08: No doubt, by now, you have heard the results of our voting down here. I failed to ask you why you are not an Obama fan. I admit, I thought you would be. Had we been hanging out having this discussion, it probably would have been one of the FIRST questions I asked!! You know how that goes...
Anyway, here are a few thoughts I have on him. One of his main strengths is as a gifted orator, no doubt abt it. The first time I saw him speak, I knew he was a rising star in the Dem. Party. That being said, I really hope the media starts to hold him accountable for some of the things he says, and things he DOESN'T say. He is GREAT with generalities, but not so much with particulars. And he does NOT like being held accountable, like for his Reagan comment in Nevada, nor for his 17 (20) yr friendship with Tony Rezko, a HUGE contributor to his campaigns since the beginning, and who helped him buy his houses for less, or for having the exact same voting record on Iraq as Clinton does. When confronted, he lashes out, and when others fight back, THEY get the negative press. Go figure. As I've said, I like him generally, but I have concerns abt him. He can give great speeches, though - no doubt. Not as good of a speaker in, say, debates. IMHO, that is. And it was his inability to think as quickly on his feet, or to not seem to have a firm grasp on issues of national security and other policy issues that led me to Clinton.
All of that being said, Kucinich is the one with whom I share MANY similar beliefs. I do not know why he is not taken more seriously in this country, though he got basically NO media coverage, when everyone else was getting at least some (Edwards suffers this same fate a lot, too, I think). It is a telling commentary, I think. And MANY people kept saying they agreed with him, but didn't think he was electable, so went with someone else (Meliisa Etheridge told him that she would keep voting for him until he became president!!). I am guilty of that, too. It isn't just his looks - goddess knows, Bush is no great shakes. So, just wondering.
And along THOSE lines, I am (so) sick and tired of the media deciding who the nominees are going to be. They seem to be doing the same crap they did to Gore and Kerry, and it is REALLY frustrating. Even people I LIKE, like Keith Olbermann, does it (to far lesser degrees than, say, Fox Noise or CNN). On MSNBC, for example, Obama is their man, and they have made that abundantly clear. I do not think that is their job - to tell us who we should want as our nominee. I know - I'm so naive. But their lack of investigation into statements is staggering. I don't know how that gets changed. Seriously, though - HOW is the media brought to account?? Like all of the lies Bush and Powell told to get us into Iraq, that the media just regurgitated - how do we get an actual MEDIA, which engages in JOURNALISM, and not simply reprinting the press releases from, say, Bush?
Note of Support to Sen. Clinton
So, um, yeah - I'm a Clinton supporter! There is a place for notes of support to her on her website. This is what I sent her:
Dear Senator Clinton,
I am SO glad you are running for president. I have waited for this for YEARS now. Thank you for participating in this process, despite having to fight not only against your Democratic opponents, but your Republican opponents as well (not to mention the media, and not just Fox Noise - their "coverage" is incredibly frustrating to ME - I cannot imagine what it is like for YOU! Today, for example, it was All Obama All Day. So much for giving each candidate equal time!).
And this is one of the many reasons I knew you would make a great president - your incredible strength of character. Add to that your brilliance; your commitment not just to the country, but to its citizens, and our concerns; as well as your compassion, especially for those who are disenfranchised.
As you and President Clinton keep saying, the more people get to know YOU, not what we are told about you by the media and the right wing, the more people want to support you. In fact, this past primary in SC, an old friend of mine voted for you. He used to be a Republican before saw the light. He said a year ago he thought you shouldn't run because it would be divisive for the country. And now he is voting for you. That says a lot about YOU, and what you bring to the table.
Finally, if I may make a request: I would appreciate it if you would consider changing your stand on same-sex marriage, and embrace the concept. It is unfair for ANY American to be treated disparately under the law, and that is with what we are faced. In restoring the USA to its best status after Bush, can we not also move in joining with many European (and some South American) countries in supporting ALL of our citizens? Thank you for your consideration.
I want to add that I met, briefly, your council, Leecia Eves, at the rally in Charleston, 1/26. She was so warm and engaging, and I want to commend her to you (I confess, I was so awed to be talking to someone actively working on your campaign that I failed to introduce myself or my partner). She treated us like friends she just met, and is an OUTSTANDING reflection on your campaign, and you.
Thank you again, Senator Clinton, for putting yourself through all of the trials and tribulations of a campaign. I, for one, look forward to your inauguration next January!! Stay strong; stay positive - people are BEHIND you!
Blessings on you in this endeavor!
All the best -
The Reverend Amy
Dear Senator Clinton,
I am SO glad you are running for president. I have waited for this for YEARS now. Thank you for participating in this process, despite having to fight not only against your Democratic opponents, but your Republican opponents as well (not to mention the media, and not just Fox Noise - their "coverage" is incredibly frustrating to ME - I cannot imagine what it is like for YOU! Today, for example, it was All Obama All Day. So much for giving each candidate equal time!).
And this is one of the many reasons I knew you would make a great president - your incredible strength of character. Add to that your brilliance; your commitment not just to the country, but to its citizens, and our concerns; as well as your compassion, especially for those who are disenfranchised.
As you and President Clinton keep saying, the more people get to know YOU, not what we are told about you by the media and the right wing, the more people want to support you. In fact, this past primary in SC, an old friend of mine voted for you. He used to be a Republican before saw the light. He said a year ago he thought you shouldn't run because it would be divisive for the country. And now he is voting for you. That says a lot about YOU, and what you bring to the table.
Finally, if I may make a request: I would appreciate it if you would consider changing your stand on same-sex marriage, and embrace the concept. It is unfair for ANY American to be treated disparately under the law, and that is with what we are faced. In restoring the USA to its best status after Bush, can we not also move in joining with many European (and some South American) countries in supporting ALL of our citizens? Thank you for your consideration.
I want to add that I met, briefly, your council, Leecia Eves, at the rally in Charleston, 1/26. She was so warm and engaging, and I want to commend her to you (I confess, I was so awed to be talking to someone actively working on your campaign that I failed to introduce myself or my partner). She treated us like friends she just met, and is an OUTSTANDING reflection on your campaign, and you.
Thank you again, Senator Clinton, for putting yourself through all of the trials and tribulations of a campaign. I, for one, look forward to your inauguration next January!! Stay strong; stay positive - people are BEHIND you!
Blessings on you in this endeavor!
All the best -
The Reverend Amy
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Thoughts on Hillary and Barack
This is taken from an email I sent to my cousin 1/28/08:
Abt Hillary - sigh. I tell you, I am so, so sick of the media pouncing all over her. They have been saying all KINDS of crap abt her, AND Bill, over the SC vote. I'm sick and tired of Clinton having to fight the candidates on BOTH sides, and the media. (By the way, what did Bill say that was so wrong about Obama? He DOES have the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton! Not that anyone seems to care...) I used to like Obama more, but after the snide comments, and unprovoked attacks on Clinton, not so much. And it would sure be nice if he was vetted BEFORE becoming the nominee, should he do so, rather than AFTER when it is too late to change anything. Have we learned NOTHING from Bush's candidacy and the media's poor job? I am glad he brings hope to people and all that, but given the mess this country is in from Bush and his minions, I, personally, want someone who has concrete plans to FIX it!
Take a look at Media Matters and see the crap Clinton is having to deal with, and that's not even from Fox Noise!!! What really gets me, though, is that everyone is saying, "well, the right wing has it in for her, so we shouldn't pick her!" Since WHEN do we allow the Right-Wing of the Republican Party pick OUR candidate?!?! And why SHOULD we?!?! Grrrrrr.
Oh - and WHY was it so bad for Bob Johnson to make a slight, passing comment abt Obama's drug use?? Everyone talks abt Bush's drug/alcohol use, and Bill's, "I didn't inhale" thing, but for some reason Obama is COMPLETELY untouchable even though he has admitted it!. What is really getting me is that people are depicted as racist if they don't want him, and they are quick to say it isn't abt color, but it sure was HERE in SC - he got 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote. Yet, when Clinton wins NH, the women's vote is completely dismissed, as though we shouldn't even be voting! It is making me crazy.
(I might add here that to NOT question someone because of their race IS racist. It is not treating them the same as anyone else. Why SHOULDN'T Obama be held accountable for his record?? Everyone else is! He can get angry when challenged about it, or start trying to revise what he said, but he STILL should be questioned on it! Like him allegedly being a progressive when he said Joe Lieberman was his mentor? Lieberman?? He isn't even a Democrat anymore, and he is Obama's mentor? Wanna take another look at Obama's remarks about Reagan and the Republican Party of Ideas now?!?!)
Abt Hillary - sigh. I tell you, I am so, so sick of the media pouncing all over her. They have been saying all KINDS of crap abt her, AND Bill, over the SC vote. I'm sick and tired of Clinton having to fight the candidates on BOTH sides, and the media. (By the way, what did Bill say that was so wrong about Obama? He DOES have the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton! Not that anyone seems to care...) I used to like Obama more, but after the snide comments, and unprovoked attacks on Clinton, not so much. And it would sure be nice if he was vetted BEFORE becoming the nominee, should he do so, rather than AFTER when it is too late to change anything. Have we learned NOTHING from Bush's candidacy and the media's poor job? I am glad he brings hope to people and all that, but given the mess this country is in from Bush and his minions, I, personally, want someone who has concrete plans to FIX it!
Take a look at Media Matters and see the crap Clinton is having to deal with, and that's not even from Fox Noise!!! What really gets me, though, is that everyone is saying, "well, the right wing has it in for her, so we shouldn't pick her!" Since WHEN do we allow the Right-Wing of the Republican Party pick OUR candidate?!?! And why SHOULD we?!?! Grrrrrr.
Oh - and WHY was it so bad for Bob Johnson to make a slight, passing comment abt Obama's drug use?? Everyone talks abt Bush's drug/alcohol use, and Bill's, "I didn't inhale" thing, but for some reason Obama is COMPLETELY untouchable even though he has admitted it!. What is really getting me is that people are depicted as racist if they don't want him, and they are quick to say it isn't abt color, but it sure was HERE in SC - he got 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote. Yet, when Clinton wins NH, the women's vote is completely dismissed, as though we shouldn't even be voting! It is making me crazy.
(I might add here that to NOT question someone because of their race IS racist. It is not treating them the same as anyone else. Why SHOULDN'T Obama be held accountable for his record?? Everyone else is! He can get angry when challenged about it, or start trying to revise what he said, but he STILL should be questioned on it! Like him allegedly being a progressive when he said Joe Lieberman was his mentor? Lieberman?? He isn't even a Democrat anymore, and he is Obama's mentor? Wanna take another look at Obama's remarks about Reagan and the Republican Party of Ideas now?!?!)
Letters to MSNBC
Okay, I have written a couple to CNN, too, basically saying the same thing. I guess I am more disappointed in MSNBC because I had been a faithful Keith Olbermann watcher, and had given up on CNN long ago. Anyway, here they are:
1/28/08: Dear MSNBC:
I keep seeing the same story about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. Yes, it is a big deal, but WHERE is your mention of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and her two siblings endorsing Clinton? NOT all of the Kennedys are endorsing Obama! (Or even a mention of Bill Nelson of FL endorsing Clinton, for that matter?)
This biased reporting of HEAVILY favoring one candidate over another is NOT YOUR JOB!! It is the VOTER's job to decide which candidate we support, after getting the necessary information from the media. It is HIGH past time for the media to DO ITS JOB, actually look into each candidate's RECORD, as well as their positions, and stop cherry picking what information we get. YOU are supposed to report; WE are supposed to decide!
This particular news source has been one of the most flagrantly biased sources in terms of presidential candidates. Just yesterday alone on MSNBC (tv) with Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson attacking Hillary Clinton for not calling Obama after his SC win is just one example of the NUMEROUS attacks launched on her by your hosts and contributors. Enough already! Just so you know, I have been a faithful viewer of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and occasional viewer of Dan Abrams. I want to continue to do so, but I am tired of the media deciding who should be our candidate!
Thank you for your kind consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
1/29/08: Dear MSNBC:
Once again, your coverage is "All Obama, All the Time". WHERE is the coverage of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Kerry Kennedy's endorsement of Clinton? Where is the coverage of Maxine Waters endorsement of Clinton? Your incredibly biased coverage is reprehensible. You are supposed to report the news ACCURATELY (there were some major problems there, especially when you covered Bill Clinton in SC - cuting out important parts of the video is just wrong), and allow the VOTERS to decide. It is NOT YOUR JOB to determine who our nominee is. HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE BUSH DEBACLE of 2000???
I might add - if Clinton had gotten TED'S endorsment, all of your pundits would be saying how clear it is that she is part of the entrenched Washington climate, or just the endorsement of one dynasty for another, or something comparable. But since it is OBAMA, they are spinning it like it is the greatest thing EVER!! Why don't you try actually looking at the SUBSTANCE of what Obama says? Or his VOTING record in IL and the Senate?? Isn't that what you are SUPPOSED to be doing as a NEWS source???
All I am asking for is NEUTRAL, comparable coverage for all of the candidates. Think you can do that???
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: Dear MSNBC:
I keep seeing the same story about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. Yes, it is a big deal, but WHERE is your mention of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and her two siblings endorsing Clinton? NOT all of the Kennedys are endorsing Obama! (Or even a mention of Bill Nelson of FL endorsing Clinton, for that matter?)
This biased reporting of HEAVILY favoring one candidate over another is NOT YOUR JOB!! It is the VOTER's job to decide which candidate we support, after getting the necessary information from the media. It is HIGH past time for the media to DO ITS JOB, actually look into each candidate's RECORD, as well as their positions, and stop cherry picking what information we get. YOU are supposed to report; WE are supposed to decide!
This particular news source has been one of the most flagrantly biased sources in terms of presidential candidates. Just yesterday alone on MSNBC (tv) with Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson attacking Hillary Clinton for not calling Obama after his SC win is just one example of the NUMEROUS attacks launched on her by your hosts and contributors. Enough already! Just so you know, I have been a faithful viewer of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and occasional viewer of Dan Abrams. I want to continue to do so, but I am tired of the media deciding who should be our candidate!
Thank you for your kind consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
1/29/08: Dear MSNBC:
Once again, your coverage is "All Obama, All the Time". WHERE is the coverage of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Kerry Kennedy's endorsement of Clinton? Where is the coverage of Maxine Waters endorsement of Clinton? Your incredibly biased coverage is reprehensible. You are supposed to report the news ACCURATELY (there were some major problems there, especially when you covered Bill Clinton in SC - cuting out important parts of the video is just wrong), and allow the VOTERS to decide. It is NOT YOUR JOB to determine who our nominee is. HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE BUSH DEBACLE of 2000???
I might add - if Clinton had gotten TED'S endorsment, all of your pundits would be saying how clear it is that she is part of the entrenched Washington climate, or just the endorsement of one dynasty for another, or something comparable. But since it is OBAMA, they are spinning it like it is the greatest thing EVER!! Why don't you try actually looking at the SUBSTANCE of what Obama says? Or his VOTING record in IL and the Senate?? Isn't that what you are SUPPOSED to be doing as a NEWS source???
All I am asking for is NEUTRAL, comparable coverage for all of the candidates. Think you can do that???
Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
To Stephanie Miller
OK - I have been a loyal, BIG fan of Stephanie Miller, the liberal radio talk show host. Recently, though, her shows have been almost All Obama All the Time (doesn't the FCC have rules about equal time for candidates?!). She gives Sen. Clinton one good thing a day, and Edwards is lucky if he gets mentioned. Anyway, below are a series of letters I have written to her of late:
1/23/08: Here's the thing - the media did blessed little investigation into Bush's record when he was running for president in 2000. Except for a very few people, like Molly Ivins. Had they done so, they would have seen that EVERYTHING that has happened in the country nationally as a result of Bush (save maybe the Iraq war, though the case could be made), he did in Texas. Ivins was one of the few to document that.Clinton is right - Obama's record should be examined, TOO! He has missed 37% of Senate votes, to less than 10% for Clinton. The Sexual Abuse Act that passed in Illinois was NOT the one he sponsored! And he WAS friends with Rezko for over 17 years. Rezko DID help him get $ (had read an amt, but want to be accurate) off his homes! So, it wasn't just 5 hours of legal work Obama did as an Assistant.
All I am asking is that Obama be scrutinized the same way Clinton is. He IS a politician, same as her, and he showed that with his mud-slinging (which HE started, by the way) on Monday. I might add, he interrupted her CONSTANTLY when she was trying to talk. He appeared arrogant and petty, beginning with throwing out Clinton being on the board of Wal-Mart. That was clearly a ploy to elicit a ratchet emotional response. She was on the board between 1986 - 1992, for a company that was started in ARKANSAS, in which she was First Lady. And that was LONG before Wal-Mart had a bad name. Further, Obama DID say positive things about Reagan and the Republicans' ideas, despite his attempts to reframe that later. Clinton is right - when confronted, he claims he is being misunderstood. Hardly. As you like to say, there is VIDEO of him making his comments. So, please - stop cherry picking information/facts to suit Obama.
A faithful listener even though I support Clinton -
The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: OK - Obama only got 25% of the white vote here in SC. I live here, and that is what the newspapers reported. When Clinon won NH, everyone dismissed her win as being only because of white women (like our votes shouldn't count). It is just more of the double standard in the media between Obama and Clinton. If he wins by getting 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote, then everything has changed. Huh???
By the way, Clinton got almost all 20% of the black vote, but hey - why bother mentioning that?I know you only do one good thing for Clinton a day, but really, this is ridiculous. You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson REAMING Clinton for not calling Obama to congratulate him, just MINUTES after Olbermann reads a statement in which CLINTON SAID SHE CALLED OBAMA!!! You have Obama making snide comments about the Clintons in his acceptance speech. And Frank Rich misrepresenting the Clintons in his op-ed piece. That was just this weekend. This kind of crap happens to her constantly. You would never know by the media, and sadly, that includes YOU, that Clinton is actually LEADING the Delegate votes! (And Nevada has NOT apportioned their delegates yet, btw - they don't do that until April).
So, I have a stick up my butt today - I'm sick, and sick and tired of Clinton having to fight the candidates on BOTH sides, and the media. (By the way, what did Bill say that was so wrong about Obama? He DOES have the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton! Not that anyone seems to care...) I used to like Obama more, but after the snide comments, and unprovoked attacks on Clinton, not so much. And it would sure be nice ih he was vetted BEFORE becoming the nominee, should he do so, rather than AFTER when it is too late to change anything. Have we learned NOTHING from Bush's candidacy and the media's poor job? I am glad he brings hope to people, but given the mess this country is in from Bush and his minions, I, personally, want someone who has concrete plans to FIX it!OK - going back to bed now.
Still love you...The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: You keep mentioning the endorsements Obama has gotten this weekend, but NOT Hillary's! Here is another one, also from a Kennedy:
Statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."And the American Nurses Association endorsed her, as well."
Just sayin'!
1/29/08: Hey, Steph and the Mooks -
Hate to rain on your constant Obama love-fest, but I thought Obama's response, or lack of one, to Hillary Clinton last night after the SOTU was quite telling. He received the endorsement from Ted, he had every opportunity to be a gracious winner, yet he purposely snubbed her when she shoke Ted's hand. That was just classless.
You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson FALSELY attacking Clinton for not calling to congratulate Obama after SC, which she had done, yet I did not hear any of the MSNBC Obama cheerleaders making any negative remarks over this clear lack of grace.Like I said before, I used to like him more, but I have noticed he has little substance in his speeches, beautiful though they are (try reading the transcripts next time, and not listen to him giving it), and his barely (and not so barely), contained anger toward Clinton LONG before Bill went to SC (Obama was attacking Clinton in his speeches a good bit - she was NOT doing that to him) is what we have endured for the past 7 years. I, for one, do not want another president who is so quick to anger and lacking in manners. Here's a thought: Why don't you try actually LOOKING at what he has done as a senator, how many votes he has MISSED (over 37%, which seems pretty high to ME for a junior senator), and what he did in IL before annointing him the new savior of the country??? Quit dismissing his 20 yr relationship with Rezko as being nothing - if that was Clinton, or Edwards, you would be all OVER it!! In other words, vet Obama NOW, not AFTER he becomes the nominee, should that happen!
All of that is to say, could you please try to be a tad more objective toward Obama, Clinton, and Edwards?!?! Maybe even mention CLINTON'S endorsements from THREE Kennedys???
Still a listener, though it is getting harder...
The Rev. Amy
1/23/08: Here's the thing - the media did blessed little investigation into Bush's record when he was running for president in 2000. Except for a very few people, like Molly Ivins. Had they done so, they would have seen that EVERYTHING that has happened in the country nationally as a result of Bush (save maybe the Iraq war, though the case could be made), he did in Texas. Ivins was one of the few to document that.Clinton is right - Obama's record should be examined, TOO! He has missed 37% of Senate votes, to less than 10% for Clinton. The Sexual Abuse Act that passed in Illinois was NOT the one he sponsored! And he WAS friends with Rezko for over 17 years. Rezko DID help him get $ (had read an amt, but want to be accurate) off his homes! So, it wasn't just 5 hours of legal work Obama did as an Assistant.
All I am asking is that Obama be scrutinized the same way Clinton is. He IS a politician, same as her, and he showed that with his mud-slinging (which HE started, by the way) on Monday. I might add, he interrupted her CONSTANTLY when she was trying to talk. He appeared arrogant and petty, beginning with throwing out Clinton being on the board of Wal-Mart. That was clearly a ploy to elicit a ratchet emotional response. She was on the board between 1986 - 1992, for a company that was started in ARKANSAS, in which she was First Lady. And that was LONG before Wal-Mart had a bad name. Further, Obama DID say positive things about Reagan and the Republicans' ideas, despite his attempts to reframe that later. Clinton is right - when confronted, he claims he is being misunderstood. Hardly. As you like to say, there is VIDEO of him making his comments. So, please - stop cherry picking information/facts to suit Obama.
A faithful listener even though I support Clinton -
The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: OK - Obama only got 25% of the white vote here in SC. I live here, and that is what the newspapers reported. When Clinon won NH, everyone dismissed her win as being only because of white women (like our votes shouldn't count). It is just more of the double standard in the media between Obama and Clinton. If he wins by getting 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote, then everything has changed. Huh???
By the way, Clinton got almost all 20% of the black vote, but hey - why bother mentioning that?I know you only do one good thing for Clinton a day, but really, this is ridiculous. You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson REAMING Clinton for not calling Obama to congratulate him, just MINUTES after Olbermann reads a statement in which CLINTON SAID SHE CALLED OBAMA!!! You have Obama making snide comments about the Clintons in his acceptance speech. And Frank Rich misrepresenting the Clintons in his op-ed piece. That was just this weekend. This kind of crap happens to her constantly. You would never know by the media, and sadly, that includes YOU, that Clinton is actually LEADING the Delegate votes! (And Nevada has NOT apportioned their delegates yet, btw - they don't do that until April).
So, I have a stick up my butt today - I'm sick, and sick and tired of Clinton having to fight the candidates on BOTH sides, and the media. (By the way, what did Bill say that was so wrong about Obama? He DOES have the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton! Not that anyone seems to care...) I used to like Obama more, but after the snide comments, and unprovoked attacks on Clinton, not so much. And it would sure be nice ih he was vetted BEFORE becoming the nominee, should he do so, rather than AFTER when it is too late to change anything. Have we learned NOTHING from Bush's candidacy and the media's poor job? I am glad he brings hope to people, but given the mess this country is in from Bush and his minions, I, personally, want someone who has concrete plans to FIX it!OK - going back to bed now.
Still love you...The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: You keep mentioning the endorsements Obama has gotten this weekend, but NOT Hillary's! Here is another one, also from a Kennedy:
Statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."And the American Nurses Association endorsed her, as well."
Just sayin'!
1/29/08: Hey, Steph and the Mooks -
Hate to rain on your constant Obama love-fest, but I thought Obama's response, or lack of one, to Hillary Clinton last night after the SOTU was quite telling. He received the endorsement from Ted, he had every opportunity to be a gracious winner, yet he purposely snubbed her when she shoke Ted's hand. That was just classless.
You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson FALSELY attacking Clinton for not calling to congratulate Obama after SC, which she had done, yet I did not hear any of the MSNBC Obama cheerleaders making any negative remarks over this clear lack of grace.Like I said before, I used to like him more, but I have noticed he has little substance in his speeches, beautiful though they are (try reading the transcripts next time, and not listen to him giving it), and his barely (and not so barely), contained anger toward Clinton LONG before Bill went to SC (Obama was attacking Clinton in his speeches a good bit - she was NOT doing that to him) is what we have endured for the past 7 years. I, for one, do not want another president who is so quick to anger and lacking in manners. Here's a thought: Why don't you try actually LOOKING at what he has done as a senator, how many votes he has MISSED (over 37%, which seems pretty high to ME for a junior senator), and what he did in IL before annointing him the new savior of the country??? Quit dismissing his 20 yr relationship with Rezko as being nothing - if that was Clinton, or Edwards, you would be all OVER it!! In other words, vet Obama NOW, not AFTER he becomes the nominee, should that happen!
All of that is to say, could you please try to be a tad more objective toward Obama, Clinton, and Edwards?!?! Maybe even mention CLINTON'S endorsements from THREE Kennedys???
Still a listener, though it is getting harder...
The Rev. Amy
MSNBC
I have been having fits over the incredibly biased reporting on MSNBC. Just now, for example, one of the panel discussing the Floriday primary argued that Obama's numbers were down among white voters because he wasn't allowed to campaign there. NEWSFLASH!!! He DID have tv and radio ads there, in direct violation of the no-campaign pledge among the Democrats. And, NO ONE ELSE campaigned there! Clinton SMOKED him down there, plain and simple. JUST ADMIT IT!! YOu were GLEEFUL over her losing to him in SC, and he is losing MUCH bigger to her in FL. It was NO Contest! Sheesh!
Prior to that, Keith Olbermann was interviewing Sen. Clinton after her win tonight. He could not even make himself say that she was beating Obama by a LOT. And, he read to her a statement on air he had just received from the Obama campaign in which he said that Clinton had said Florida didn't even count, and now she was acting like it was a big deal. It was quite petulant and childish, I thought. He is a SORE loser. Never mind that this is the SAME network that falsely accused Clinton of not congratulating Obama by phone when he won SC, even though they announced on their own network that she had CALLED him. Yet, he sends this, and they say NOTHING abt his not congratulating HER! Grrrrr.
So, below, a letter sent to Tim Russert a little while ago after catching some of his "analysis":
Dear Mr. Russert:I caught two different comments you made tonight in regard to the Democratic primary in Florida. First, you said that many of the voters of Florida were making their choice today, and were going to go for Barack Obama. The NY Times (online) tonight
paints a different picture:
Decided whom to support Clinton Obama Edwards
10% Today 35 27 31
7% Within three days of primary 40 45 14
6% In the last week 31 38 28
15% In the last month 42 46 12
31% Before that 64 25 9
31% Voted absentee 49 29 17
The next time I heard you speak, you said that the Democrats made a pledge, and it was a "pledge of character," and they needed to uphold that, and not award any delegates. Barack Obama had ALREADY broken that pledge by running tv and radio ads in Florida.So, in the two times I actually heard you speak, you were right not once.
As for the pledge, perhaps you are unaware that it is not unheard of for states to have their primaries without the sanction of the DNC, and then appeal to the DNC for their delegates to be seated. Once the committee is assembled, those states are being encouraged to do just that.
I, for one, as an American, count the right to vote to be one of our greatest assets. I do not want ONE of my fellow citizens to be disenfranchised from the democratic process, much less two STATES! If the RNC is willing to compromise and award at least half of their delegates, the DNC should be willing to do at least as much.
I have to say, I am shocked by your blatant bias toward Barack Obama, as well as MSNBC's in general. I was under the apparently false impression that journalists were to remain neutral. Yet you and your fellow commentators have been anything but. Clinton's SIZABLE win over Obama could not even be acknowledged as such. Clinton wins, and wins BIG, and she gets a couple of minutes of air time. Meanwhile HOURS have been spent on your network hashing and rehashing Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. Here's a little newsflash for you - Robert Kennedy's children ALL endorsed Clinton. Just so you know. Perhaps one of you could work that into your "analysis."
I would ask that you try to be more unbiased in the future, but I fear it is a waste of my time.
Prior to that, Keith Olbermann was interviewing Sen. Clinton after her win tonight. He could not even make himself say that she was beating Obama by a LOT. And, he read to her a statement on air he had just received from the Obama campaign in which he said that Clinton had said Florida didn't even count, and now she was acting like it was a big deal. It was quite petulant and childish, I thought. He is a SORE loser. Never mind that this is the SAME network that falsely accused Clinton of not congratulating Obama by phone when he won SC, even though they announced on their own network that she had CALLED him. Yet, he sends this, and they say NOTHING abt his not congratulating HER! Grrrrr.
So, below, a letter sent to Tim Russert a little while ago after catching some of his "analysis":
Dear Mr. Russert:I caught two different comments you made tonight in regard to the Democratic primary in Florida. First, you said that many of the voters of Florida were making their choice today, and were going to go for Barack Obama. The NY Times (online) tonight
paints a different picture:
Decided whom to support Clinton Obama Edwards
10% Today 35 27 31
7% Within three days of primary 40 45 14
6% In the last week 31 38 28
15% In the last month 42 46 12
31% Before that 64 25 9
31% Voted absentee 49 29 17
The next time I heard you speak, you said that the Democrats made a pledge, and it was a "pledge of character," and they needed to uphold that, and not award any delegates. Barack Obama had ALREADY broken that pledge by running tv and radio ads in Florida.So, in the two times I actually heard you speak, you were right not once.
As for the pledge, perhaps you are unaware that it is not unheard of for states to have their primaries without the sanction of the DNC, and then appeal to the DNC for their delegates to be seated. Once the committee is assembled, those states are being encouraged to do just that.
I, for one, as an American, count the right to vote to be one of our greatest assets. I do not want ONE of my fellow citizens to be disenfranchised from the democratic process, much less two STATES! If the RNC is willing to compromise and award at least half of their delegates, the DNC should be willing to do at least as much.
I have to say, I am shocked by your blatant bias toward Barack Obama, as well as MSNBC's in general. I was under the apparently false impression that journalists were to remain neutral. Yet you and your fellow commentators have been anything but. Clinton's SIZABLE win over Obama could not even be acknowledged as such. Clinton wins, and wins BIG, and she gets a couple of minutes of air time. Meanwhile HOURS have been spent on your network hashing and rehashing Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. Here's a little newsflash for you - Robert Kennedy's children ALL endorsed Clinton. Just so you know. Perhaps one of you could work that into your "analysis."
I would ask that you try to be more unbiased in the future, but I fear it is a waste of my time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)