WE Blog

At this point it doesn’t really matter. I think almost everyone sees the writing on the wall, and Obama is going to let Hillary figure out for herself that she has not won, and won’t. But she is in denial.

Then Obama can start campaigning on his vast experience.

(chortles)

§ 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation
with definitive elements and defenses

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

Like I keep telling you, for fox news, facts are optional.

That kind of news distortion you like Fish?

Exactly my point. However, find me the case when CNN was awarded the priveledge of lying by the courts. FOX is a known and proud purveyer of disinformation, the others are merely suspect.

(BTW, posting that clinton says it’s fair after repeatedly calling her an unmitigated liar in many of your posts doesn’t further your cause a whole lot)

Oh, give me a break. Fox is a propaganda network run by a professional propagandist, Roger Ailes. Anyone of even normal intelligence can see that. It’s no secret. It follows, of course, that they also do some, ya know, real news from time-to-time (which is why on issues where I know they got it right, I will occasionally include a link to Fox).

They occasionally do news, too.

Naw Fish, you just like the weak-minded approach to sensationalism - it’s why those other networks appeal to you.

Admit it, you’re hooked on the tabloid culture of exploitation.

You’ve forgotten what real news looks like.

Actually, no. I haven’t watched a the nightly news in a couple decades. I realize it’s tripe, and I’m amazed such an intellectual giant as yourself hasn’t realized it yet.
I know you’re just throwing out chum, chump. It don’t fly. Find any of my posts validating your allegation. Such as “only report deaths or some sort of mayhem that our troops do (real or imagined.)”
I didn’t even pipe in when Nate was yelling the nearly 4000 dead and how all the libs must be gloating.

You might try posting in English Fish. More people would understand what you are writing.

You might try posting in English Fish

I thought it sounded just like your fearful leader, the Dubya. With all that cash he’s raking in and spreading to his cronies, you’d think he’d get some elocution and diction lessons.

And you still abandon the message for … oh, more of the same drivel.

Well then so is this Dem voter there Capn.

Neither candidate can win on pledge delegates.

Obama had better go on the attack against Republicans and soon. Otherwise a large segment of Democratic voters will rightly be too suspicious of him to vote for him.

Here on the blog, and so PROBABLY among Democratic voters at large, the general feeling is that the process is proceeding and should play out.

It is the media that is relentlessly behind the “get Hillary outta the race” movement. They see it as the next big story. So far, Lou Dobbs is the only pundit who is reporting fairly on the race.

Those Obama supporters who ARE for rushing to make Obama the nominee?

You don’t know how lucky you are you won’t get your wish.

THINK about it. As soon as Obama is the nominee, the fire of the right will no longer be divided and mostly directed at Senator Clinton.

Obama will be alone in their sights. And they will cut loose on him.

And the media will favor McCain, just as they have right along.

We have a process. It is playing out fairly.

J R,

The “fire of the right” don’t need to attack Obama — Clinton has been doing it for them.

‘News Sources Agree: Clinton Has Been Misrepresenting Obama’s Comments on Republicans’
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/21/news_sources_agree_clinton_has_1.php

‘Clintons Making Statements Not Supported by the Facts’
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/20/clintons_making_statements_not.php

And J R is helping the Clintons.

I’ll jump in here, JR. The only reason McCain is not in the center of the media’s crosshairs now is that his nomination process is over. Oh sure, he’ll still get superficial treatment by the pundits, and they will still make him the headline for a day or two if he makes another mistake, but Clinton and Obama rightly belong at the top of media attention at the moment. And yes, I really do believe they are receiving more or less equal treatment from the media.

As soon as we settle on one nominee, then the press treatment of McCain will become more concentrated and critical. And as soon as the debates begin, the entire country will see how McCain holds up under extemporaneous one-on-one wordfire.

And when the ads start asking Americans whether we want our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren defending and dying in Iraq, then the chickens will come home to roost. Along with the questions about wanting Bush/Cheney for a third term . . . Americans want change, and McCain ain’t it. Neocons and the RNC want Clinton to be the nominee, so what does that tell you about who we would be better off with? Not a difficult analysis is this.

“I’m beginning to think the press is not ready for a black man to be POTUS.”

I could have sworn he’s just as “white” as he is “black”.

Obama has had more than a deserving share of negative media attention over his ex-pastor’s sermons. Surely you haven’t forgotten? I saw more pictures again tonight on Hardball and/or Countdown of Pastor Wright. I’m not happy with the amount of negative publicity either Hillary or Barack are receiving, but my earlier point was that “more or less” they are receiving equal negative treatment, and the only reason McCain isn’t receiving a great deal of attention is that his nomination process is over. So the attention being focused on the Democrats is normal and expected.

“Do you have something else to add to the criticism of Obama?”

I already answered that.

“You NEED to get out in front of his negatives while there is still a contest. ”

I can’t say more without seeming to attack Obama.

““You NEED to get out in front of his negatives while there is still a contest. ””

What are they, other than the bogus “not experienced enough” bullshit.

I asked you a question that answered your concern cosmos.

Kindly answer it.

Oh and I NEVER make false statements.

Never.

I have only gone with and commented on what Obama himself has said.

I am going to ask Obama supporters not to attack Senator Cli

“I am going to ask Obama supporters not to attack Senator Cli”

Then ask you candidate to stop making up shit about Obama.

J R posted April 1, 2008 at 9:30 pm

“I have only gone with and commented on what Obama himself has said.”

You and the Clintons take what Obama “said” out of context. That’s the same as lying.

That’s a tactic used by the RNC, GOP, and our dysfunctional corporate media.

J R, spend a few 100 hours researching the archives at http://www.dailyhowler.com to learn more about how it’s done.

“I can hit back at that. I won’t. But not for much longer”

Do it. Explain how legislative service from ‘97 to now is “less experience” than from ‘01 to now.

Easy, right?

J R,

I did answer your question.

Corporate media is dysfunctional.

That does not excuse the Clinton’s, or you, taking what Obama said out of context.

Do you understand grammar? Sometimes ideas cannot be expressed in one sentence — you have to look at the preceding and/or following sentences to understand the ENTIRE “idea”.

And please explain your 6:38 pm post.

It sounds like you’re suggesting that Dem primaries be held in only the “blue” states” — and disenfranchise all the voters in the “red” states.

“You need to get out in front of Obama’s issues.”

What issues - he is African American?

He has more experience than Hillary?

He took a principled stand against the Iraq War?

His campaign is funded by small donations and not special interests?

He is going to abide by the rules regarding Michigan and Florida?

He doesn’t claim to have come under sniper fire?

He doesn’t attack the Christian denomination of his opponent?

What issues?

Sigh…..

I have tried to avoid this.

I am content to let the process continue.

I do not have to endure continuing attacks from people who are SUPPOSED to be my friends.

I do not know WS. I do not know cosmos.

I can only go on what they post here.

You SHOULD be looking to defend your choice of nominee. You SHOULD be looking to make sure that he is electable.

If the Democratic party is to be plunged into civil war, it will not be me or any supporter of Senator Clinton starts it.

J R,

So your answers to my 10:16 pm post are yes, yes, and no link?

And I am defending a candidate from another candidate’s out-of-context attacks.

WSClark,

Also, I don’t think Obama caused the audience at a debate to laugh at a moderator, like Clinton did to Russert.

Annoying the very powerful MSM like that shows a lack of political “savvy”.

I have said that I am content to let the process play out.

I am not prepared to react to posters who I do not know.

“I am not prepared to react to posters who I do not know.”

In other words, you can’t delineate the “Obama issues.”

J R,

I don’t know you either — so I guess I shouldn’t waste my time “reacting” to you.

J R believes that Clinton has more “political savvy” than Obama. But MSM is an important part of U.S. politics.

See part 5, starts about 1/2 way down the page,

‘AND YOU DON’T MESS AROUND WITH TIM! Clinton tugged on Superman’s cape -— and the Raccoons swung into action:’
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100407.shtml

The process continues.

I will hold my fire.

Obama supporters must do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

But as a supporter of Senator Clinton, I will not continue to endure further abuse from people who I may have mistakenly considered friends.

As this blog knows from its beginning, I’d much rather fight my enemies than those that pretend to be my friend.

“I will hold my fire.”

If you have something, fire away……….. you keep threatening but never shoot.

If you have something, I would like to hear it because I have yet to hear anything that would convince me that Barack Obama is not our best choice for president.

So, fire away.

You have to do your own research WS.

So basically, J R is unable to defend his attacks on Obama, and unable to provide the secret “research” that he has done.

And J R happily calls “Senator” Obama a “candydate”, while he respects Clinton by calling her “Senator” Clinton.

I’d rather not make an enemy of you “cosmos”.

Quit chewing on my ankles.

Surely, JR, you must understand that you’re argument that, “You don’t know the whole truth, and you need to be afraid of what you don’t know” isn’t very persuasive. To really be convinced to take your admonition to heart, your audience must be predisposed to give you credit for being clairvoyant, or for having possession of critical information that has not already been revealed in blogs and by pundits around the country.

While I agree that it is difficult to rebut your ghostly, secret claims of superior knowledge, you must understand that this audience doesn’t know you either, and hasn’t seen any evidence that would warrant you receiving our blind faith that you know all, and see all that the rest of us cannot and have not, even though we have been searching.

And while many of us don’t want to attack Clinton, some of us feel compelled nevertheless to defend the candidate of our choice.

If the numbers were reversed and Clinton held the lead in delegates, Obama would have been told to get out of the way.

But the Clintons are royal, and you don’t tell royalty what to do. You give a few hints instead, and hope that they finally get the message.

So far, it hasn’t worked.

The Clintons are royal?

Horses–t.

This ain’t Tudor England, Outfit. And thank goodness for that.

I just saw “The Other Boleyn Girl” - and I’m thanking my luckiest and luckier stars that we won our independence from the British.

If we worshipped the Clintons and Bill were regarded as Henry VIII, can you just imagine what…………….

Oh, wait………………………

I suspect that “The Outfit” is a well known con poster in yet another nic trying to interfere in the Democratic nomination.

For kelley…

You are not even aware or honest as to the media bias toward Obama. Given that, how studied as to Obama or for that matter anything else can you be?

Here is a hint.

If you are truly for Obama? Pretend for a day that he is your worst nightmare. Do your research accordingly. Find his weaknesses that way and get out in front of them now.