I have to ask, because CNN has turned into the Obama Spin Machine.
Hour after hour Monday, they interviewed Obama fans who all agreed, as did Wolf the Whore, that Bill Clinton is the worst person to ever open his mouth. Of course, they don’t play his comments, they just talk to people who all agree that Bill Clinton is “out of control” for saying …well, they’re not saying what he said, but it was terrible, it was horrible and, of course, incredibly racist and damaging to the Democrats.
I assume the same thing is going on at MSGOP and FOX because they loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove Obama.
“Party leaders” consists of ONE GUY (whose name I never heard before today) say
“it wouldn’t hurt for Clinton to chill,” while giving Obama a pass for the glowing comments Obama said about Reagan.
I’ve asked this again and again but I can’t get an answer:
Doesn’t it feel strange to team up with the media whores
we’ve all complained about for the last ten years?
Bart, perhaps the Main Scream Media is finally getting tired of one of the hated rich people, a certain Mrs. Bill Clinton.
But I still say it’s ratings, not politics, that motivates them.
Exception: When His Most High Holiness, the All Benevolent Rush Limbaugh (He who’s garbage I’m not worthy to pick through) had his T.V. show, he was told he was going to be moved to a 3:00 A.M. time slot, even though his ratings were far higher than the show that would replace him. As we all know, and still cry bitterly over, he quit doing it, refusing to be crammed between info-commercials.
But generally speaking, I think it’s ratings that motivate the Main Screams, and they certainly don’t think their audience is very intelligent, as is demonstrated by their behavior.
May the internet continue to pound them senseless!
Grimmy
Comment by grimgold — January 21, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Bartcop seems to overlook the fact that BOTH Obama and Clinton would be smeared by the Rethugs. Being a “knife fighter” as BC claims Hillary is, does not guarantee that the ignorant Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly addicted sheep woll vote for her.
Even as she could make cogent arguments that would make sense to most rational people to defend against the smears, the dumb ass Rethug voters will still vote their hate, not for a candidate (and what a pathetic bunch they’ve been gifted with). Polls show that Edwards has the best chance against any of the Rethug candidates, but BC and other brain washed Clinton lovers would rather have defeat at the polls, than to support the BEST candidate, the one who can win, John Edwards.
That said, I have some real reservations about Edwards, and the other two. Personally, it looks like it will another every 4-yr hold my nose and vote for the Dem. If I do it. I’m sick of the elites and MSM picking our candidates for us. You should be too. The best candidate this time around was clearly Dennis Kucinich, he of the small stature, 12-year old boy haircut and wife with a tongue stud. Far and away the candidate who represents US, not the corporations (Obama, Clinton), but US.
I think BC has his head so far up his ass he cannot really tell what his interests are; because Bill Clinton did not address them BC.
And Hillary Clinton WILL NOT either.
Comment by VTindependent — January 21, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
David Brooks on Russert’s show saying Republicans respect Obama
and would vote for him over many Republican candidates.
Brooks is a worm. He’s just pushing that because the Rethugs could defeat Obama with their rascist smears (maybe Obama is McCains black baby…).
And the others, like Gingrich praise Hillary because they want her to run because her high negatives (especially in the South) could help defeat her.
Therefore, John Edwards is the SAFE Democrat to run, and win. But some people are blinded by Hillary’s close proximity to the best moderate Republican president we’ve ever had, or by Barack’s message of hope (whatever the hell that means, I’ve never met a politician who gave me hope, but most of the make me despair).
So, since the Dem elite and MSM have chosen these three (and some would like to knock that down to 2…the guaranteed losers) once again we are faced with either writing in a vote, thereby throwing it away, or voting for the elite chosen candidate, and throwing away our vote on someone who will not REPRESENT us, or voting for the Rethug, and throwing away the fucking country.
Wish I could emigrate, and soon.
Comment by VTindependent — January 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Of the three, doesn’t Edwards have the best message?
That we need to take power back from the corporations?
Why won’t people vote for what’s best for them?
Why do poor people vote to make the rich richer?
Bartcop, I almost had a heart attack! You agree with me?
Then, why don’t you throw your support behind the guy who represents YOU, John Edwards. Why not drop the Hillary support, because she will have a hard time winning, even if she can, because the Rethugs are going to unite with their hate to bring her down. They’ll do it even if it means a Mormon might win. Wake up!
Comment by VTindependent — January 21, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
VT, the GOP is on the run — they don’t even make sense to most of their supporters. This time around, I don’t think they can win more than ten states, if that, no matter who the Republican candidate turns out to be.
The economy is in the tank and sinking deeper; that favors the Dems. Whether it’s Hillary, Obama or Edwards, they’re going to win big in Nov.
I used to have a job where I talked to people who lived through the Great Depression — none of them thought spoiled rich aristocrat FDR would do much to help the average guy — they just disliked him less than the hated Herbert Hoover and the Republicans, and it was time for a change. (‘Change’ — where have we heard that before?)
Any one of the three top Dems might turn out to be better than we think. Not trying to spread false hope, but extending the possibility in the midst of all this pessimism.
Besides, if Hillary gets the nomination, it’ll do my heart good to see her slap back at her right-wing tormentors. That by itself would be worth my vote.
It’s damn sure that any of the Dem top crop would be better than Bush or any of the other GOP candidates up on the block.
Comment by RS Janes — January 22, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Dear VT, greetings from the Dark Side. I read your comment about addicted sheep, but I get what’s really baaathering you – lack of good candidates. A thought, mine not His Greatness and Wonderfulness Rush Limbaugh (who’s dishes I’m not worthy to wash): if some of the money is taken out of politics we might get better rethug candidates…. oops! democrat candidates.
How you may ask breathlessly?
By having television stations broadcast candidate ads right along with their traffic and weather. The FCC could mandate they do this, thereby making campaigning less costly.
Cheers, your friendly neighborhood rethug, Grim
Comment by grimgold — January 22, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
VT, I was reading over the the comment I left for you and realized it didn’t really say what I wanted to say. A great deal of money is spent by candidates for television air time.
I ment to say politicians could get FREE air time as mandated by the FCC exactly as they’ve mandated that weather and traffic be broadcast, as a public service.
Since this issue is so important to you that it is causing you to bitterly shake your fist at the sky, perhaps, if you like my idea, you can detail it? My gift to you.
Grimmy
Comment by grimgold — January 23, 2008 @ 11:08 am