Endorsements for Hillary

I'm sorry, but that's one of the funniest things I've read all week. Obama's racking up superdelegates like John Lewis, Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller and Clinton counters with this?

Nice try, Hillary. Good luck next time.

KT here--

Ghostlawns, have you ever SEEN Jay Rockefeller's jump shot?

You had one thing to say today... and that was it?

Wow.

KT here--

Converse: Hey, cut me some slack. It's Saturday, and I'm spending my weekend in airports.

With the caveat that I don't think endorsements matter much, especially if no fund-raising or GOTV operations are involved.... Melanie Griffith? Whose most prominent role in the last decade was on badplasticsurgery.com?

Said it before, I'll say it again, the Clintons are campaigning in 1997.

Sadly for Ms. Clinton, Obama's triple endorsement by Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, and Jessica Alba trumps Ms. Longoria-Parker.

Although, I guess John McCain did pick up the endorsement of Rue McClanahan this week.

Welcome aboard the Titanic, Ms. Griffith and Ms. Parker.

Hey Jim, go rent "Body Double" and tell me you wouldn't want to be "endorsed" by the Melanie Griffith of a couple of decades ago.

"Sadly for Ms. Clinton, Obama's triple endorsement by Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, and Jessica Alba trumps Ms. Longoria-Parker"

Interview from inquirer.net:
Natalie revealed to us in our recent interview at New York’s Ritz Carlton that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.

“Hillary is experienced, bright and strong. I’m very excited about her!”

Please get your facts straight before you post.

Forget Eva's husband -- bring Melanie's! I love that smooth talking Spaniard!

It's weird...there's some kind of Hillary momentum happening...

...something's happening...

Please get your facts straight before you post.

Damn! Throwdown on the celebrity endorsement thread!

This race is heating up, all right.

Okay, Karen. This is completely OT to this post, but as I promised, I read all your links from "Superdelegates: If You've Got the Money, Honey, ..." which is now dead, but in which you took me to task for making "sweeping" statements about your willingness to write about political corruption in DC. (First, let me apologize for not providing full link support; your High Sheriffs limited the number of links, so I've used them sparingly.

Generally, here are the pieces that you linked to, as the primary author:
"The Man Who Bought Washington" (Jan. 08, 2006). an 8 page wrapup (and magnum opus) on the Abramoff scandal
"DeLay and Company" (Mar. 14, 2005) a detailed, pull-no-punches narrative of the rise and iron rule of "The Hammer", Tom DeLay
"When Tom Met Jack" (Apr. 17, 2005) another narrative detailing the working relationship between DeLay and Abramoff, partners in corruption
"The End of a Revolution" (Oct. 08, 2006) a wrap-up of various sex scandals and general corruption of the Republican machine.

These were good, solid pieces on some of the major Republican scandals of this decade. I like your narrative writing style and was pleased to see (with the exception noted below) that you didn't pull your punches or try to muddy the waters by minimizing the corruption and who the actual guilty parties were. You illuminated some very complex issues and your detailed laying out of the players and how they fit into the schemes was admirable. Your use of anonymous sources was well used: the sources added information and you didn't allow them to obfuscate or to engage in personal smear attacks. I admire that.

I want to highlight one extraordinarily insightful idea that you wrote about in "The End of a Revolution" Page 4

In many ways, that story line is the product of the strains within the party over homosexuality. It's a tension nearly as deep and tortured as those the Democrats grappled with over race a half-century ago, when they tried--unsuccessfully--to keep an uneasy coalition of Southern segregationists and Northern civil rights advocates from tearing their party apart. Even though many of the G.O.P.'s policies have been hostile to gay rights, its leaders have long followed a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with what pretty much everyone in Washington knows is a sizable number of closeted Republicans among members of Congress, upper-level staff and top party operatives. Says Patrick Sammon, executive vice president of the gay group Log Cabin Republicans: "There are a lot of gay Republicans who are working behind the scenes to advance the priorities of this party."

So I'll retract my "sweeping" statements that so annoyed you. I'll try to keep my criticism more focused in the future. When I backslide, as I surely will, feel free to post a stern "James, you are 'sweeping' again."

continued below
* * * *

* * * *
Continued from above (sorry about the font formatting)

But here.I was sorely disappointed to see that you included the dishonest, misleading and disingenuous item below, full of the same kind of baseless innuendo which I complained that you were engaging in yesterday. It was really the only flaw in all those stories, but a serious one. I can't help but think that this paragraph was inserted by someone above you, a managing editor operative, for example. Because it didn't fit with the otherwise outstanding journalism of the rest of the work.

"The Man Who Bought Washington" Page 3
Given the potential damage, it was no surprise that Republicans sought to make Abramoff a bipartisan stain, circulating a seven-page research paper titled "Jack Abramoff's Democrat Connections," which lists contributions and news stories associating the disgraced lobbyist with nine Democratic Senators and six Democratic House members. But the fact is that about two-thirds of Abramoff-related money went to Republicans, and that may have already begun to shift the political equation 10 months before the congressional election.

Of course, Abramoff gave NO money to Democrats, and he bribed no Democrats. That weasel-word "Abramoff-related" comes straight out of that Republican "research paper." The "related" part of course refers to the fact that the Indian tribes, Abramoff's clients, contributed to Democrats. The tribes, of course, were the entities that Abramoff et all defrauded and it was neither unethical or corrupt for Democrats to accept contributions from them, contrary to your innuendos. Those tribes had *been* contributing to the Democrats, and in fact their contributions to Democrats *decreased* during the time that Abramoff was defrauding them.

As you detail here
"DeLay and Company" Page 4 Abramoff and former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon are being investigated by the Senate and Justice Department for allegedly defrauding Indian tribes that had hired them as lobbyists.
The two are suspected of convincing the tribes to spend vast amounts on such extravagances as basketball-arena skyboxes for parties for members of Congress and their staffs..

and here:

"When Tom Met Jack" Page 3 - The lobbyist's activities might have stayed under the radar had a newspaper in Alexandria, La., not reported the startling fact that a local Indian tribe was paying Abramoff's associate Scanlon $13.7 million for public relations work. Subsequent investigations uncovered a flood of e-mail between Abramoff and Scanlon, in which they referred to their Indian clients as, among other epithets, "monkeys" and "losers," even as they charged these clients fees that totaled upward of $66 million. It's far from clear what, precisely, the tribes were getting for their investment. In one instance, Abramoff and Scanlon secretly maneuvered to shut down a Texas casino operated by the Tiguas—only to turn around and offer their services to get it reopened for a fee of more than $125,000 a month.

So, shame on Time for publishing that outright lie. They weren't the only ones. I cannot fathom why, in four otherwise outstanding pieces, you would choose to included outright Republican lies in your piece. Surely you knew. But, at least you didn't fabricate graphics to go along with the lies, as Washington Post did.

Karen, the kind of innuendo that you and Time engaged in here and in your post yesterday -- and it only seems to be about Democrats -- is damaging to your audience. The Democrats have their share of real corruption, so I really don't understand why you want to imply unethical conduct and corruption where it doesn't exist. It is a disservice to your audience and you cause your readers to be even more cynical about the political process than need be. You've proven with these four pieces that you can write outstanding articles about real corruption, laying out the evidence and the players in a clear and understandable way. Why not stick to doing that and leave the faux innuendo to the likes of John Solomon and the Washington Post?

Stuart,

I think Hillary could get narrow victories in TX and OH on tuesday. While Obama has momentum if you take the long view, it's clear that playing the fear cards, the gender card, the media victim card and well and coordinating negative attacks with John McCain and George Bush to triple team Obama may give her a little bump in the end.

And even though the cold, hard mathematical facts require double digit wins for her on tuesday, there is no doubt that she, the media, and various shills will exult in narrow victories as a reason to spin big mo for her and serious doubts about him. Classic expectations game gaming, of course. "Forget those 20 point leads a couple weeks ago, she won by 4 points....what an amazing comeback!!!!!"

It kind of reminds me of how John McCain talks about the surge....you declare victory when you go from really really intolerable levels of violence to merely really intolerable levels of violence.

But I think even if HIllary wins both TX and OH by 0.1%, the media will declare her a comeback kid despite the mathematical realities and the prior 20 point leads in both states when the bigger story will be Obama almost dueling her to a draw in crucial base states for her.

Holy crap, James, Los Angeles!

...it was no surprise that Republicans sought to make Abramoff a bipartisan stain, circulating a seven-page research paper titled "Jack Abramoff's Democrat Connections," which lists contributions and news stories associating the disgraced lobbyist with nine Democratic Senators and six Democratic House members.

But wait a second...is your problem simply that Karen didn't debunk the claims she reports are in the Republican "research paper"?

In her defense, she's simply reporting the content of the "research paper". It is factually true that the paper contains those items, and that the Republicans put it out for the purpose of attempting to "stain" (as she puts it) Democrats withthe Abramoff corruption. I would assume that this was an editorial cut, and that there must have been some other explanation of the baseless-ness of the Republican "stain"-job in her original piece.

Right, Karen? You did read the Republicans' paper, and did actually follow up on determining the merits of those associations with Democrats, right?

You wouldn't have just simply said "...it was no surprise that Republicans sought to make Mark Foley a bipartisan stain, circulating a seven-page research paper titled "Democrat Connections to Internet Pedophile Network," which lists contributions and news stories associating male-oriented child pornography with nine Democratic Senators and six Democratic House members." without laying out for the reader that there was no such thing, right?

It was an editor's red pen determining space requirements, right, Karen...?

Right?

Hey James,

An article in the New York Times today made me think a little bit about why the media acts the way it does, in ways that are often unfair to democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01press.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics

Here is the key quote:

"Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of “silly, even-Steven-itis.”

“People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don’t, that’s not fair,” Mr. Alter said. “What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That’s not the job of a journalist.”

I think the "Even-steven-itis" is a big reason why coverage short changes democrats. There are often situations where dems are clearly right on an issue and the republicans are clearly very very wrong. JOurnalists seems to feel a need to even the score, even if the score is not really even. And so the end result is they downplay the republican bad behavior and they magnify democratic bad behavior.

This has been my argument all aling about media bias vis-a-vis Obama vs Clinton. You can make a superficial argument that Obama gets better coverage, just like right wingers can find facts to say the media is biased against them. But if you look closely in both cases, "Even-steven-itis" (what I like to call grading on a curve) takes downplays the successes of those with the right arguments and props up those with the bad arguments.

What the clinton people perceive as media bias against them is nothing more than a dissatisfaction that even with the great amount on "even-steven-itis" being applied to the campaign, Obama is still doing well. It's because Obama is doing so well that he can still win even with as much "even-steven-itis" being thrown at him.

Getting back to the dem vs republican coverage...I think the ideas of democrats get "even-steven-itised" by the MSM and when you combine that with the decided one-sidedness of the right wing echo chamber, you end up, in sum, with a media environment tilted stringly against the dems. The "liberal media" is making up stuff to make everything even-steven, while the conservative media is busy making stuff up to make the dems into devils.

See, stuart, she says "But the fact is that about two-thirds of Abramoff-related money went to Republicans,and that may have already begun to shift the political equation 10 months before the congressional election. In an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday, respondents said they favored a generic Democrat for Congress over a Republican by a lopsided 49% to 36%."

It's that weasel-word "Abramoff-related." They counted the legal, ethical contributions when they were figuring out that particular proportion, in order to smear, or "stain" Democrats. Dishonest, egregiously dishonest. That's why I think that was inserted by someone higher up, her desk editor or something. Because it doesn't fit with the rest of her work on those four pieces. And Carney would definitely do something like that, in my opinion. Stengel wasn't ME at that time.

RKA:

Personally, I don't think that she's going to win the primary (forget caucuses) vote in TX, and therefore she's gone by Wednesday.

She needs a primary win in TX in order to stay in the race, and even if he squeaks a few more delegates than her out of the caucuses, a primary win will be significant in terms of contributions.

She's raising a crap-load of money online right now. She's put together (according to her) about 30,000 new online donors in something like 48 hours. It's weird. Her people are responding to her like they're finally getting the message that she needs help and support. I guess admitting the five million dollar loan wasn't such a bad idea, after all.

I think that she'll lose TX by a point, win OH by four or five points, lose VT by high double digits, and win RI by low double digits...and concede next week.

I believe that if she were, somehow to pull out a primary win by even a point in TX, that would mean that she would be in a great position to take PA by a decent single-digit margin, which I believe would happen. I think that PA's status as an important swing state rich in delegates makes it a more significant win in terms of coverage than Wyoming and Mississippi, in which the story of tiny Western caucuses working for Obama and huge African-American turnout in Red States for Obama has already been told ad nauseum.

Chris Bowers has already called this race for Obama, and I believe him, in spite of his already having called the race for Hillary in November.

He's relying on polling that suggests Obama by two points in TX, and that's what I believe will end the race.

That said, it's very, very possible that you are totally right about the spin coming out of Tuesday night. If she wins the TX primary, I think that she's in it--maybe to win it, in fact. I'm in no way ruling it out.

Don't forget: we're a hundred or so delegates between the candidates, which is as tight as it has every been in most of the press corps' lives, and therefore we're tantalizingly close to the golden dream of every political reporter's fantasies--the Brokered Democratic Convention.

Let's see if she can take the TX primary by, as you suggest .01%. If that actually happens, we're in for a truly wild ride...

KT here--

Wow, James, I must admit I didn't expect you to go back and READ all those stories. You are having a less relaxing weekend than I am. (I am currently in a cab heading to the Holiday Inn Express where the HRC campaign is bunking the press corps tonight; I tried to joke with the advance woman, by asking whether this was the "Holiday Inn Express And Spa," but she didn't laugh...) Thanks for the kind words. One of the reasons the High Sheriffs started this blog was to bring new readers to TIME, which is great. But one of the frustrations is the fact that, by definition, new readers see us as blank slates, and don't put our work here (often done, as blogs tend to be, on the fly) in the context of what else we are doing and have done.

As for the question, SZ and James, regarding the Abramoff-related money that went to Dems: I think the stories make it very clear that Abramoff was overwhelmingly a Republican problem. In fact, he was a creation of the Republicans' rise to power, as my stories (and pretty much everyone else's) made very, very clear. The issue with lobbyists, though, is that they channel their clients' contributions to where they need to get results. And when a piece of legislation is in front of a congressional committee, they often decide they need to grease the skids on both sides of the aisle. It seems it would be remiss not to mention that.

James, Los Angeles:

You're going to wait until she gets out of the cab...right?

Take it easy...

Well, Karen, I felt bad that I had p!ssed you off in an insufficiently caffeinated state and then had to sign off for work.

We could rehash the whole Abramoff-related thing, but I fail to see the point any more. But it is wrong and Time was dishonest to their audience, just like it was in the Joe Klein fiasco.And that indicates to me that the upper management of Time have lost sight of its mission and have chosen to become operatives and players on the DC scene. I am happy that I discovered, reading your pieces, that you haven't.

I'm no new reader of Time. Not at all. My mom and dad had a subscription to Time since before I ever learned to read.

Thanks for that analysis, James. And thanks for pulling out the gay republican quote. The gap between the leaders' values and the values they profess is yawning, and this is one of most telling.

It is interesting that this is not considered newsworthy. The rumors are very widespread. Now there's no ideological bias here; nobody fusses about Democrats in the closet either.

But the hypocrisy of prominent republicans seems especially striking, and one would think that rank and file theocons would be interested in knowing that the people they support lie about sharing their values.

it does get tricky. In discussing Larry Craig with Jesus' General, he pointed out that he believed Craig's sincerity in his claim that he is "not gay." He justs like dirty sex with men sometimes. Just like that guy who asphyxiated himself in nested rubber suits.

But it does seem to me that if you are representing a red state with strong positions on the role of government in regulating sexuality that your behavior does, in some way, matter. In fact, it clearly does matter because these people do not tell the truth about themselves. And when the truth comes out, they're dead meat.

KT here again--

James and SZ, I would love to continue to discuss my journalistic shortcomings, but I have already devoured the potato chips that the management of the Holiday Inn Express thoughtfully left by my bedside, and now have heard a hot rumor from my friend at the Dallas Morning News that the advance people have smuggled in some Bud Light to this bar-less hotel. Apparently, everyone is going to meet in the lobby to watch HRC on Saturday Night Live. Hey, it's Saturday night in Central Ohio and I don't want to miss out...

I have a hunch that all this SNL loving for HIllary is negotiated penance for Shuster. Shuster is back on the air and the HIllary people are no longer calling for his head. I think Wolfson probably negotiated/extorted some good SNL coverage in exchange for not continuing to make a circus out of the shuster thing.

Nightey nite, Karen

Bud Lite and a Holliday Inn Express? She don't lead the glamorous life.

I hadn't heard HRC was gonna be on SNL. Tina Fey must have considerable clout with Lorne Michaels. Risky, but I suspect she'll pull it off.

Karen:

I can't tell you how many times I've been at a hotel in central OH drinking Bud Light (or something or another).

No, really--I literally can't tell you how many times, because I don't remember exactly how many there were, since I spent so much of that quality time doing the part of my job that wasn't playing guitar on stage for 115 minutes every other day.

You know you love being on the road, Karen.
I couldn't live that way forever (nobody can), but it's a great bubble to be inside when you're in it.

Write it all down for us, and let us read it one day...

KT here--

False rumor on the Bud Light. Am watching the HRC SNL thing from my room.

KT here --

Just saw HRC's bit on SNL. So, like, never mind.

But I'll keep watching for the Juno girl.

Liveblogging Hillary on SNL:

"..."

Alright, that was quick.

Well, after seeing Hillary on SNL, I'm going to say something that we're all probably going to be saying for the next few weeks:

She did better than I expected she would!

Ok, I will give that SNL skit some points for delivery, so to speak.

But what was striking to me about it was the degree to which it tried to emphasize the "Hillary as victim (of male commentariat sexism) meme, the New Hampshire rabbit out of the hat trick.

I have been saying for a while when people like Russert attack Hillary, it helps Hillary through predictable backlash dynamics. I have often expressed the opinion that the whole schtick is staged, that Russert knows hes's helping Hillary by being an ass towards her. And I have to say that the SNL skit confirm my suspicions that this is all one reality-television-esque manufactured gender war designed to give HIllary a sympathy female vote.

The whole message of that skit is, "The men are beating up in me and Barack Obama is a moron."

Nobody seems to want to talk about Obama getting grilled on Farrakhan, Wright, etc. Russert knows there is no backlash to grilling Obama becasue Obama is male.

The other thing that they did was to portray Obama as a bush-like idiot...which is absurd.

Anyways, I can go on and on,,,but I want to leave everyone with a thought to ponder....

When big media is helping a candidate spread a meme that they are biased against her, is it Big Media's self-awareness on display or is it their cynicism?

This is going to be replayed over and over in the next 2 days and will be the dominant story line I am guessing. And who will benefit? HIllary. Big time sympathy vote coming thanks to Big Media (who are just soooooo biased against her).

Oh, and by the way, Stuart, nice expectations game playing you got going on there. At 9:13 you lower expectations, and after the SNL skit you can barely contain your glee about how she is going to exceed them. I think you know what the game being played here is all about.

So much of this reminds me of Nevada...

A state that Hillary was leading by 20+ points forever there, she has the reid machine, and she was leading in the LVRJ poll by nine but spun a 6 point victory as a huge surprise.

Another common theme to TX and NV is going to be voter intimidation:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1/205349/5724/764/467074

Mark my words, the media are going to be eviscerating Obama day after day while they wrong their hands about whether they are being too hard on Hillary.

The media don't want this to end. The ratings will go down. The circulations will drop. Big media is doing what it can to Keep Hillary in the game. it would be nice if they could report in a somewhat straight manner, but the agendas are clearly on display here and they know that the public is generally too stupidto get what they are up to. Just like the media conviced 2/3 of the public that Saddam ordered 9/11, it is very easy to convince the public that HIllary is a victim of media bias.

The crass cynicism just kills me.

KT here--

Goodness, Rudy is totally upstaging her, and he's not even running. SZ. RKA--you guys watching?

RKA:

What...?

Oh, and by the way, RKA,

what...?

On Weekend update now...you're totally right about Rudy...

Does anybody know anybody that actually watches SNL at all--I mean, when Hillary Clinton isn't on the show?

SNL also has done a cartoon skit which features Obama with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hmmmm.....just a coincidence?

So you have the gender/victim card being played in the opening segment...

And then you have the race card being played as a sketch later on....

I have one question....

When did Mark Penn become an SNL Writer?

NBC only stops blowing on the dog whistles long enough to discuss how hard they are being on poor Hillary....

This is outrageous.....throwing jackson and sharpton in there....I can't believe this crap....

All I have to say is...I called it. This was totally fabricated Shuster penance. For one slip of Shuster's tongue, Clinton, Inc extorted NBC to do a race and gender hit job on Obama in exchange for allowing Shuster to keep his job.

This is disgusting.

RKA:

Come on, that cartoon was funny!

Well, you may have thought it was funny by the studio audience seemed pretty damn silent to me.

Would you have found it funny if they subtituted Hillary for Obama, Monica for Jesse, and Paula Jones for AL?

Another angle to that cartoon...it plays into the manchurian candidate meme....Obama is secretly fooling all of us about his true feeling and associations....

I am losing track of all the dog whistles in SNL tonight.

I have to say also that I think the reason that the Clinton campaign orchestrated a race and gender hit job on Obama tonight is not so much about winning the primary. She knows that overcoming a 160 pledged delegate lead ain't going to happen and she can't win with the supers.

This and the red phone attacks are the clintons trying to soften up Obama while they are still in the race because they want Obama to lose, partly out of spite, but partly because they want another cance in 2012. They actively worked to sabatoge Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004, and they will do the same with Obama '08, all while giving nominal, token support for Obama that lends plausible deniability to all the underhanded things they will be doing to try to help McCain.

A copy of the oppo file on Obama will be sent to the McCain camp.

Mark Penn will be collaborating with his herp Karl Rove to both help McCain under the radar.

The Clintons will be giving a lot of secret advice to McCain in telephone calls.

Democrats everywhere need to know how much the Clintons care about our party when they make their voting decisions.

RKA:

I really can't tell when you're joking anymore...

Stuart: Comedy imitates life, and life imitates comedy as SNL clearly showed us tonight.

I forgot to mention in my posts above that they nicely slipped in the dressed Obama picture and the Hussein middle name in the weekend update segment.

Dogs whistles galore tonight.....

I mean c'mon, gender/victim card in the opening segment slandering Obama as dumb/hypocritical on campaign finance to boot, race card in the cartoon, and muslim card in weekend update....

SNL has, of course, lampooned many politicians through the ages.

But can anybody ever recall such a sustained, coordinated attack on a single candidate in multiple segments like this?

Oh, just to show you that I am fair, Stuart, I have not convinced myself that this is Clinton dog whistle, though there are some who think it is...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html

Well, after seeing Hillary on SNL, I'm going to say something that we're all probably going to be saying for the next few weeks:
She did better than I expected she would!

Feh. I have no desire to see either HIllary or SNL ever again.

It is my sincere hope that she loses big in my state on Tuesday. As for voter intimidation in the caucuses tuesday night- they can try, but we're going to be ready for them.

And don't be so sure she's going to get a bump from the "red telephone" fear mongering ad. Everyone I've talked to here in the past 2 days was infuriated by that. It's seen as nasty, desperate and Bushlike.

Eh, if it's one of many things the Clinton campaign has taught us, it's that all the ol' "cards", the identity card, the victim card, the partisan card, this card and that card, they're fading along with the boomer generation.

They're too much about the self and little about anything else. They're designed to lazily circumvent any real discussion or debate with overtures to what's essentially self-masturbation. They favor the hypocritical and the disingenuous, they serve the stupid and the self-absorbed, and never the voter or the issues. The concept belongs in the 90's with the boomers' glory(hole) days, the outrageous housing market, the overvalued Enron stock, and Melanie f*cking Griffith. And this campaign.

I read that same quote from John "Don't get me started on boomers" Alter earlier today and it was great. What's more unfair, media bias or Obama and the others having to compete against the "inevitable" Clinton juggernaut? Where were those crocodile tears during the scandalous farce that was the CNN Nevada debate? Or early in the campaigns when the MSM decided to ignore anyone NOT Obama, Edwards, or Clinton (and ultimately Edwards himself)? Or when Obama was tagteamed by the two Clintons ("I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes!"), and was told by Hillary's cronies, including those in the news media, to "stop whining"? Who's whining now?

and was told by Hillary's cronies, including those in the news media, to "stop whining"? Who's whining now?

Well, I never thought I'd be calling a dem a whiny ass titty baby, but she and her campaign crew surely qualify.

Vicious Maniac, great post and examples. I agree 100%.

Ahhhh, let her have her swan song, her last 48 hours or so in the spotlight--as Stuart the horsetrack gambler says above, Obama wins the primary and caucuses in TX and she's out Wed (my own pre-dick is he wins by far more than 1%). SNL, Stewart, preemptive wistfulness by our press--none of this is in time to patch the iceberg hole. And if I'm wrong, I'm staying home Wednesday and getting really really drunk. I'll do something to truly defile myself like posting at the Swamp all day.

And RKA, if you want to cheer up go read Dowd & Rich.

Thanks to the magic of Tivo, I can list all the Clinton talking points propogated, all the clinton weaknesses spun as strengths, and all the identity politics dog whistling performed in last night's unprecedented, tour-de-force hit job on Obama:

1) (Opening Sketch) - Hillary wants to talk about health care, but the moderators won't let her (Message: Hillarry is serious and presidential, everyone else is not).

2) (Opening Sketch) - Tim Russert waxes poetic about Obama's eloquence (Message: HIllary has solutions, Obama has speeches)

3) (Opening Sketch) - HIllary is a tough fighter whose abrasive tactics are actually a big plus in defeating the special interests. (Tactic: Turn a weakness into a strength via jujitsu even though there is no evidence that being abrasive helps you overcome senate fillibusters).

4) (Opening sketch) - Whenever Obama is asked a question, he says nothing and has a blank stare on his face (message, Obama is just like that Bush guy, when clearly his intellect is stronger than either HIllary's or Bush's...but since Obama is young and black, it's easy to create this false meme because it plays into peoples sterotypes of black people as dumb who are only in positions of power due to welfare and affirmitive action. Portraying Obama as dumb was a not-so-subtle dog whistle)

5) (Opening Sketch): Obama is a pledge breaker on campaign finance (message: he's really a liar)

6) (Opening Sketch): Russert apologizes for asking Obama a semi-tough question (Message: Obama is getting unfair softballs, just ignore the grilling on Farrakhan and Wright!)

7) (Opening sketch): Brian Williams snaps at Hillary: "We ask the questions here, sister" (Message: major dog whistle to women...the men are sexists, dismissive, and arrogant to boot while Hillary is a victim)

8) (Opening Stetch): Tim Russert asks her about NAFTA but it is portrayed as a piling on interrogation with a Law & Order cameo (Tactic: Blur the distinctions on NAFTA by blaming the messengers instead of addressing the underlying substance of the facts in order to cast doubt in voters minds about her NAFTA advocacy. The point of this is to link Barack Obama to that Law & Order interrogator, evoke visceral feelings of men being cruel to women)

9) (Opening Sketch) HIllary gets every question first with the world leaders while Obama gets answers fed to him (message: the deck is stacked against Hillary ignore how Obama is slandered as just another Bush)

10) (Opening Sketch) The moderators declare HIllary the winner (message: the media spins for Obama, just ignore all the debates this year they declared for Hillary when polls and focus groups said Obama did better)

11) (Hillary response): The fake debate was "sort of" like the real debate (message: this exaggeration is really not too far off from the truth...I am getting a raw deal here as a woman. Never mind all the free air time NBC is giving me toair my grievances, soften my image, correct my weaknesses, gin up a gender backlash, blow some racial dog whistles, and smear my opponent)

12 (Hillary response): Amy cackles, Hillary asks if she really laughs like that, Amy says no (Message: the media has not only been unfairly panning my laugh, but its not even true)

13. (Obama files): Obama says "We have the momentum and nothing can stop us" (message: the black guy is getting Cocky. Never mind that hillary was entitled to 2007 being a year of inevitability, but when Obama credibly claims some momentum, its like the black guy does not know his place)

14. (Obama files): Obama disses Jesse Jackson by meeting with him in a closet (message: Obama is ashamed of Jackson, never mind the fact that Jackson was in the Obama spin room after the cleveland debate!)

15. (Obama files): Obama refers to a "secret plan" between him and Jesse Jackson. (message: despite his good exterior, Obama is a manchurain candidate with subversive ulterior motives)

16. (Obama files): Obama mispronounces geographic locations, sending jackson to "Lower Zambova" and Jackson has to correct him as "Lower Zambuta." Later, Jackson figures out that neither location exists, but there might be a country called Zambia. (Message/Dog whistle: Obama is dumb about the world, but Jackson is even dumber...they are both black after all, and yet they don't even know African geography)

17. (Obama files): While being interviewed with Brian Willimms before Sharpton walks in, Obama is talking about bringing people together (message: he has no substance)

18. (Obama files): Al Sharpton wears a electrocuting dog collar and gets shocked trying to enter an Obama rally as an all white backdrop of texans go in unencumbered. (message: Obama is uncle tom, "not black enough" slave-master while poor Al Sharpton is being treated like a dog/slavr. I find it astoundng that while dog whisting, NBC would actually portray sharpton as a dog. Nevermind the fact that Sharpton has not even endorsed Obama and, with his NY roots, was hedging between both Hillary and Obama for most of the primary)

19. (Obama files): in closing scene before Al and Jesse try to parachute in, Obama is once again talking about brining people together and saying "Yes, we can" (message: Obama is a one-trick, substance-less pony)

20. (Weekend Update): Picture of Obama in Kenyan garb and turban is shown with no context or explanation of why. (message/dog whistle: if you have not seen this already, here you go...those e-mails you've been getting are true)

21. (Weekend Update): In a blurb on McCain/Cunningham, Seth drops a "Hussein" bomb. (message/dog whistle: See, the dress matches the e-mail which matches the middle name....he's a scary foreigner who is really an al qaeda operative)

I challenge anyone to come up with an example of SNL engaging in wholsale shillery of one candidate while simulateously evsicerating another candidate. This is even worse than what SNL did to Al Gore in 2000, portraying him as insufferable while Bush as likable. Those 2000 SNL skits were playes over and over and became part of the memes of so-called serious reporters. I sense that SNL is trying to do the same thing here but in a much more frontal assault on Obama, trying to drive mutliple memes that help Hillary and hurt Obama yet show little, if any, fidelity to an underlying truth, the basis for comedy that is actually good.

If SNL thinks this is going to help it get the coveted 18-45 demographic to watch their has-been show, they are sorely mistaken.

RKA:

10) (Opening Sketch) The moderators declare HIllary the winner (message: the media spins for Obama, just ignore all the debates this year they declared for Hillary when polls and focus groups said Obama did better)

I believe that you meant to write "The moderators declare Obama the winner..."

Oh, just to show you that I am fair, Stuart, I have not convinced myself that this is Clinton dog whistle, though there are some who think it is...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-letters-nig-on-childs-pajamas.html

RKA:
I think that it's a good call for you to not go with Ann "Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy" Althouse's judgment on this one...and probably any other subject that might come up.

Ann Althouse is like an illiterate John Derbyshire--up on crank for three days. Her shrieking zombie episode on Blogging Heads TV with Garance Frank-Ruta is infamously whiny, silly, arrogant and pointlessly antagonistic--just like almost everything Althouse writes.

Only a serial hyperventilator and prevaricator like Althouse could claim with any seriousness that the first three letters in the word "Night" that appeared quite expectedly on a child's pajamas in that Hillary ad were actually the ominous "first three letters" in some bizarre subliminal shot at Obama's blackness.
She's a shrill fool who likes to make things up. Read her blog on any given day (if you can stand more of this kind of thing) for confirmation of that analysis.

RKA:
You do yourself credit for not going with Ann Althouse's crackpot anti- (Bill) Clinton theories.

Stuart you are right about the typo in item ten of my list...I meant to say Obama.

Stuart Zechman - you are so right on!

As I see it, here's how the news analysis goes - and I've been watching CNN/MSNBC/FOX pretty closely for several days. Hillary goes negative in a rally with under 8,000 - maybe under 800 people there. They repeat her top barb over and over under the guise of "wow, look at this!" - And so it's not a "paid for by Hillary Clinton" attack ad - but an even more effective attack ad because it's not termed as such. All at once three or four points that reached only a few in Ohio are blandished accross the country and we're all supposed to be analyzing Obama's experience.

And the killer part, is every one asks the pundit for advice for Hillary - who is one of the most experienced campaigners in the country - 3 presidential campaigns, 2 senate campaigns, 3 governor's campaigns (he lost one).

She knows exactly what she's doing - she got the media to show her attack ad for the day for free over and over and over - and add push to it by centering 10-15 minutes/show (if not more). She blandished the victim card and the media played right into it.

Hillary has been the lead off story in every program since Super Tuesday. Sometimes I wonder (cynically) if it's because the media would like to keep us glued to our sets for another 2 months. Though the suspense is killing me.

Just happened to catch Cspan and saw Governor Karen Sebilius from Kansas - now THERE's a woman with genuine class and the self-assurance that comes from not having so much to hide - and the type of woman people would vote for.

There hasn't been one media or debate question that asked her about her 8 years in the Senate besides the Iraq vote. Questions like:

1. Name your 5 most important pieces of legislation. (Even one).

2. List two campaign promises you kept from your New York Senate campaigns - Except for Tim Russert - who did some sound research and held her accountable on the promise of 200,000 jobs.

During the Clinton years, we learned to turn on the automatic filter and we knew they were lying or just promising whatever to get in.

As for answering that phone, Bill Clinton ignored the call when the World Trade Center was hit. He ignored the embassies. Yes he was informed. Yes, the military did their job. But according to Buzz Armstrong - the man who held the nuclear football, he had been briefed about an operation to strike at and kill Bin Laden ahead of time. He knew it would take his go-ahead. But he was golfing that day, and would not take the calls from Sandy Berger. We had the wrong man with the wrong attitude towards the military in office. (Source: "Dereliction of Duty" by Buzz Armstrong)

That's EXPERIENCE I don't want this country to repeat.