
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, the mainstream media in general have shied away from truly examining the racist campaign strategy recently being employed by the Clintons in their effort to defeat Barack Obama for the Democrat presidential nomination.
One huge exception is NBC's "Meet the Press," which on Sunday, with the assistance of guests Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Chuck Todd of NBC News, and Byron York of the National Review, went a long way towards possibly ending this disgraceful race baiting by a man that used to fashion himself as being the first black president.
Regardless of what folks might think of the political leanings of Russert and Dowd in particular, all present and associated with this segment are to be enthusiastically applauded and thanked for going where few media outlets dare (partial transcript follows, video available here, relevant section begins at minute 27:25):
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back.
Welcome all. Let's go directly to the results last night. Here it is, South Carolina, and look at these numbers. Barack Obama, a huge win, 55 percent; Hillary Clinton, 27 percent; Edwards, 18. Obama getting nearly 300,000 votes, double the total of Hillary Clinton.
And here's the breakdown by race. Obama got 78 percent of the blacks, Clinton got 19, Edwards 2. Amongst whites, Obama 1-in-4; Clinton, 36; John Edwards actually won the whites. Interesting to note, Obama and Clinton practically tied amongst white men. And look at this age breakdown: Young voters, 18 to 29, it's overwhelmingly Obama, 67; Clinton, 23; Edwards, 10. Over 60: 38, 35, 27, much tighter.
Chuck Todd, what does it mean?
MR. CHUCK TODD: Well, it was a, it was a major victory for Obama and a major rebuke for the Clintons. I mean, particularly President Clinton. He somehow not only drove more African-American support to Obama--I mean, this turnout's massive. Barack Obama's total, vote total, is going to be equal to the entire Democratic electorate in South Carolina from 2004. So it was a massive turnout among African-Americans. But more importantly, he somehow drove white voters to John Edwards. I mean, John Edwards winning the white--I mean, there--it was--yes, John Edwards finished third. But when you're looking at inside those numbers, and, you know, there's been all this talk about whether this primary had become racialized and somehow that Barack Obama was getting pigeon-holed and he was going to be the black candidate for president rather than a candidate for president who happens to be black, Clinton did not benefit by getting the white vote. John Edwards did. And now John Edwards is staying in this race. We're going to have a lot of other Southern primaries coming up. This is--the, the entire way this primary happened, it's a, it's a big rebuke of the Clintons and a big shot in the arm for Obama.
MR. RUSSERT: Another event overnight, Maureen Dowd, in your paper, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the 35th president, John Kennedy, wrote an op/ed piece in The Times endorsing Barack Obama. And this is what she said: "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president--not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." Barack Obama. Are we going to see Caroline Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey, town hall? How significant is this?
MS. MAUREEN DOWD: Well, I think this is huge. The Hillary people were obviously trying to get Caroline Kennedy's endorsement, and the fact that she gave it to Obama is very much like the moment that Bill Clinton pushed when he shook JFK's hand at Boy's Nation. Now, JFK probably didn't remember that at all, but the Clinton campaign made that the Arthurian moment, where Galahad took the sword out of the stone. And now Caroline has done that for Obama. But it's a real moment because she is saying, "You are like my father," after decades of politicians pretending to be like, like JFK, and Gary Hart chopping his hand, and, you know, Dan Quayle trying to act like he was JFK. She is giving him the imprimatur, and it's--I think it's huge.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the issue that--of race, which came up. Jim Clyburn, Byron, the congressman from South Carolina, after the vote came in last night, was reflecting on what had happened. And this is what he said. Let's watch.
(Videotape)
REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): I'm not surprised at that at all because I really believe that in the last 48 hours the voters kind of recoiled. They kind of decided that you reject the racial animus that seemed to be developing. And I'm so pleased.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The voters recoiled. Congressman Clyburn had said earlier in the day that Bill Clinton had been using, in effect, code words that really made black Americans nervous. Those are very strong comments coming from someone who was neutral on this race.
MR. BYRON YORK: You know, I don't think you can overstate the amount of, of anger in--created in Democrats by Bill Clinton's tactics. I mean, they were very, very unhappy with him. I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, "My wife just got in the car. She's driving to South Carolina to volunteer for Obama." They were that angry at what Clinton had done. And he also said, you know, Clinton is trying to turn him into Jesse Jackson. And sure enough, after Obama wins big, what does Bill Clinton say about it? "Well, you know, Jesse Jackson won here, too." But you know, she--Hillary Clinton was kind of reduced to her core constituency in South Carolina. She had problems with everybody except for white women. Eighty percent of black women voted against her, 80 percent of black men voted against her, and 72 percent of white men voted against her. I mean, she was down to a very small constituency.
MR. RUSSERT: Ron Walters, a professor at University of Maryland, made this observation the other day on NPR, and I want to share it with everyone. "The only way that Obama is going to be elected is try to neutralize race. And when you're talking about Bill Clinton in so far as they try to blacken Barack Obama, what they do is play on the divisiveness of the racial sector. The objective of the Clinton campaign is to make him blacker, which is to say--which is to call out his blackness and, therefore, to complicate his constituency which is predominantly white."
And then Bob Herbert, Maureen, of your paper weighed in with these very powerful, forceful words, "It's legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere. It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects--on their party and the nation--of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another. What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation's need for healing and unifying? These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned."
Two black voices in academia and in journalism with very stern words for the--Bill and Hillary Clinton.
MS. DOWD: Well, it was an astonishing spectacle of seeing a so-called first black president trying to destroy a would-be first black president. I mean, we've never seen anything like this, and it was very personal between Obama and Clinton. And I think that, in the end, Hillary gave up a good narrative for her, which is that she had carved out her own identity and that it wasn't going to be the Bickersons back in the White House, and you just saw the Clintons. And, and Mitt Romney was right, you, you visualized her in the Oval, him in the East Wing rambling around looking for mischief. And it was, you know, it was a very seamy--Phil Gaily, who's the editorial page editor of the St. Petersburg Times, said watching Clinton in South Carolina is like watching a mad dog slobber. It was about him. And, you know, as The Onion said, you know, The Onion headline was, "Screw It, I'm Running for President by Bill Clinton."
MR. RUSSERT: Well, Barack Obama in his editorial board session with the Nevada paper did say that Ronald Reagan was a transformative president, unlike Bill Clinton...
MS. DOWD: Exactly.
MR. RUSSERT: ...and Richard Nixon. And that clearly...
MS. DOWD: And that got Bill doing. Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Chuck Todd, ranking Democrats, they endorsed Obama. And yet, someone like Tom Daschle, the former majority leader, said this, "I think it's not presidential, it's not in keeping with the image of a former president." Pat Leahy, Obama supporter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. castigated the former president for what he called the "glib cheap shots." He's "not helping anyone and certainly not helping the Democratic Party." John Kerry, the Democratic standard bearer in '04, said this in a radio interview with the National Journal.
(Audiotape)
SEN. JOHN KERRY: Being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.
(End audiotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That seems to be so personal, so direct, ranking Democrats, Obama supporters, but nonetheless, taking on Bill Clinton, a two-term Democratic president.
MR. TODD: Yeah, there's a few things going on here, particularly with congressional Democrats, that I think we shouldn't overlook is that Bill Clinton never had a great relationship with congressional Democrats, and there certainly is a, is a battle for control of the Democratic Party that I, I feel like you see play out in, in Clinton and Obama. I--it was not an accident that Daschle, and you've seen a lot of senators start to gravitate toward Obama, that there's some old personal feelings, I think, that have come up. I mean, certainly the John Kerry remark, there's something there that I think he feels like he didn't get the same kind of help in 2004 and this and that. But, you know, it does feel like, though, that what Bill Clinton is doing is he read a poll, and he said, "OK, when am--how am I going to get her to 51 percent. OK. We've got to figure out how to drive white men away from Barack Obama. We've got to figure out how to drive Latinos away from Barack Obama." That's what works on February 5th. And, you know, he may not ever say that, but it feels like it's a very tactical thing that they've done, and I think that's what, you know, is going to offend the Beltway corridor, the Amtrak corridor, and, and you're seeing a lot of, sort of, the New York and Washington Democrats who are probably going to keep coming out against Clinton on this and start...
MR. RUSSERT: Maureen, you wrote on Wednesday, "It's odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line."
MS. DOWD: I know. We're seeing all these astonishing things in this race, and it worked in Nevada and New Hampshire for--I think Bill Clinton helped her there. But, in this case, I just think it raised the deja vu of the Clintons will drag anyone down to their own level and trash anyone to make up for what is missing in them or what they have done wrong. During impeachment, you know, they were trashing the founding fathers. Bill Clinton's lawyers actually filed a brief saying, "Well, Alexander Hamilton had a tawdry affair, and he wasn't kicked out of office." So it's a very debilitating dynamic, you know, to drag everyone down to their level, especially when you have this alternative of optimism and hope. And they were willing to put a dagger in the heart of hope. I mean, Obama should just beat them over the head every day with the idea that Bill Clinton said he represented false hope. Because the only way they can beat him is to beat down hope and inspiration and bringing young voters and expanding the party, and they want to kill all that. And that is not a good, you know, situation for them.
Bravo and brava!
Will other media outlets follow suit?
We can only hope.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Russert Is Good
January 27, 2008 - 20:48 ET by MikeknaJTim Russert does a great job most of the time. I know he takes some flack on various sites at times, but I think moments like this show he doesn't try to pull punches and show favor, even if his results are sometimes imperfect (as is the case for all of us).
I'd take him over Face the Nation or This Week any day.
"The shadow proves the sunshine" - Switchfoot
http://www.xanga.com/mikeknaj
Snuffleupagus
January 27, 2008 - 21:55 ET by dpc1212I agree. Watching George Snuffleupagus cover for and explain away the Clintons this morning on This Week made me sick!
Russert
January 28, 2008 - 01:26 ET by KC MulvilleI've given Russert a hard time in the past, because I always thought he refused to pull the trigger on the Clintons. Now two weeks have gone by, and he's been right on.
When you do journalism right, it's interesting to read and watch.
-
January 27, 2008 - 20:55 ET by dahliatraversWow. Awesome exchange. MoDo had some great lines.
My Favorite Dowd Zinger
January 27, 2008 - 22:16 ET by momodoI like when she said that Rudy needed to stop saying "9-1-1" and call "9-1-1" instead.
The whole roundtable was a massive Clinton bashing party.
http://dowdreport.bl...
Dowd Report: All MoDo, All The Time
modo has fans? who
January 28, 2008 - 00:16 ET bymodo has fans? who nu?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yes, I was amazed she wasn't
January 27, 2008 - 22:18 ET by motherbeltYes, I was amazed she wasn't her usual snarky self. I wish she would show a little more of that maturity in her columns. I used to enjoy reading her columns years ago, even if I didn't agree with her. Then she started doing "schtick" in every column, and the insults and caricatures kind of went beyond the pale. I lost interest.
-
January 28, 2008 - 22:16 ET by dahliatraversDitto, MB.
Maybe she feels she has to be more thoughtful and careful and less snarky when she's talking about the A-list of the Democrat party; i.e., the Clintons.
In any case, this has been wonderful, all the more so for being totally unexpected.
I saw most of this
January 27, 2008 - 21:03 ET by bigtimerI saw most of this show...when York said....Eighty percent of black women voted against her, 80 percent of black men voted against her, and 72 percent of white men voted against her. I mean, she was down to a very small constituency.
Billary is in deep doo-doo if this continues...like he stated it only leaves white women....period.
The only show I saw today that was a complete shill for Shrillary was This Week...he had on Obama and all Georgie did was shill for Hillary/Bill with quotes back and forth...Obama eventually handled him rather well and got his points in.
...and the msm keeps saying our party is in chaos...nothing compared to what is going in inside the dem party..with the Clintons leading the way...yeah they aren't divisive...not at all...been the plan Stan for all her life...funny the msm is just now waking up to that fact...better yet admitting it now that it may hurt their side and agenda.
I mean, she was down to a
January 27, 2008 - 21:32 ET byI mean, she was down to a very small constituency.
It's almost as if Cleavon Little could be her campaign manager. (hint: Blazing Saddles)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Favorite line from Blazing Saddles...
January 27, 2008 - 21:41 ET by OneZeroThey said you was hung...
And they was RIGHT!
There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
botg and OZ... LMAO!
January 27, 2008 - 21:44 ET by bigtimerbotg and OZ...
LMAO!
Is it twue what they say
January 27, 2008 - 21:52 ET by balboaIs it twue what they say about you being...gifted?
It's twue! It's twue!
...and the msm keeps
January 27, 2008 - 22:26 ET by motherbelt...and the msm keeps saying our party is in chaos...nothing compared to what is going in inside the dem party.
This is definitely a battle for the soul of, and control of, the party. The Clintons are trying to hold on to power. Just like they, the former hippies are now the "establishment" that they rebelled against in the 60's, they are now the "party structure" that they themselves rebelled against years ago, going with the DLC and the "triangulation" strategy. In a perfect world (my idea of one anyway) HRC gets the nomination, loses the election, and thus breaks the hold of the Clintons on the party, at which point Bill becomes irrelevant.
Why is this so hard to equate
January 27, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Lame CherryWhy is it the focus is always on Hillary and Bill as "all Democrats" and nothing else matters.
The Democrats like Leahy, Daschle, Kennedy and Kerry all got it figured out that smashing the black foundation brings down the entire Democrat Party. The same people who are running in mass for Congress, State Houses and Governorships.
To view this as only Clinton negates the facts that Hillary will be heading a ticket as some people think which is now viewed as racist and looney by what Bill is charging around saying.
EVERY Democrat in power recognizes this and wants no part of it as they know without the black vote most of them do not get voted into power.
It seems everyone is stuck on stupid. Dowd has it in her head that herding white guys back onto the Clinton plantation will get a win........ah earth to those people counting on the KKK vote, when one LOOSES 13% of the vote in blacks leaving and gains the Letterman elitist racist clique of 5%.......one still looses 8% and that does not get you up to 51%, but results in a massive landslide against Democrats.
If Teddy Kennedy gets it in coming out for Obama, then how hard is it for non drunks. ALL Democrats are going to have to be answering the race question if Hillary would get the nomination, she will be the George Wallace of 2008.
The Clinton's all know this and are not that stupid. Everyone keeps looking at this as the Clinton's trying to win this........start looking at the evidence of the Clinton's loosing this to protect themselves and it starts making more sense.
The Clinton's have been driving voters from their ranks since Iowa. They thought Hillary acting PMS crazy would help her loose New Hampshire but those goofy racists would rather have a crazy Hillary blubbering than a sane black man.
Not all America is racist. Iowa voted for Obama and except for crooked tricks in Nevada which the Clintons tried to add to the arsenal of corruption for people not to vote for them, Obama would have won that western state too.
If racism does not work for the Clinton's in loosing this they will slap another voting block to drive them from the Clinton camp.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Obama vs the Garden tool
January 27, 2008 - 21:46 ET by ShaftBigScoreBy the looks of the results of the SC primary: Hillary, It looks like Obama is putting in the "spades" work.
I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary. President Ronald Reagan
Problems for the Clintons?
January 27, 2008 - 21:48 ET by pbthinkerRandy Schultz, the Editor of the Palm Beach Post Editorial page, wrote an editorial today chastising Bill Clinton. I get the idea that there are a few Democrats and media people that feel they gave Clinton a lot more than he deserved, during impeachment. His approval ratings never went down below 50% and the media had a lot to do with that.
IF Todd is right, and it sounds plausible, that this is the strategy for Super Tuesday, then we'll have to see how that plays out. The point is that, no matter how it plays out, the Clintons stand a chance of really dividing the Democratic Party, to a point where it's never been before. They could get to the point where, if Hillary were to win the nomination, she just wouldn't have the support she expects.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
PBT
January 27, 2008 - 22:02 ET by Noel SheppardPBT,
And this is why Dems are so angered, as it goes to Frank Rich's point.
Look, a year ago, the Dems were flying high after taking back Congress, and were considered a shoo in to take back the White House in 2008. With the economy conceivably going into a recession, and most Americans, despite the surge's success, wanting out of Iraq, the Dems should be marching toward November with an almost insurmountable head of steam.
Yet, Pelosi and Reid showed themselves to be completely inept as chamber leaders, and now Billary seems to be dividing the Party nine months before the real celebration was destined to start.
As such, old-guard Dems like Kerry, Kennedy, and Leahy are clearly recognizing that their golden opportunity to wrest back control of Washington is slipping through their fingers, and Billary is partially to blame.
Now, in the end, Pelosi and Reid are just as culpable. However, for right now, with the emergence of Obama, the Clintons might be a perfect sacrificial lamb to point fingers at -- of course, with their bungling complicity making it more delicious for we conservatives to watch. ns
Noel, thanks for saying
January 27, 2008 - 23:22 ET by motherbeltNoel, thanks for saying "shoo-in", not "shoe-in" LOL.
I agree completely...in my comment above I said this is a battle to the "death" for the soul and control of the Democratic Party. And the "old guard" point their fingers at the Clintons for good reason: they are interested only in their own power, and don't care if they destroy the party to get it and keep it.
Noel...As you know, I am a
January 27, 2008 - 23:39 ET by JerNoel...As you know, I am a Democrat, but I'm not angry...I am furious!
The Clinton candidacy is causing what I have considered inevitable from the moment she entered the campaign: a fracturing of what would have otherwise been a rock solid party base--and one that would have made the Democratic nominee the odds-on favorite against any candidate the Republicans could run.
The Clintons simply weren't content with Hillary ensconced in a safer-than-Fort-Knox seat in the Senate; and Bill enjoying a somewhat restored--rascally but respected--reputation within the Democratic party and around much of the world. No, the breathtaking narcissism of these two--the self absorbed, self aggrandizing sense of entitlement and consuming lust for power impelled the Clintons to place personal interests ahead of the party.
The question of Hillary's electability has always been problematic. [I indicated here months ago that I would not vote for her if she were the nominee.] Even though I believed much of the right's caricature of Hillary to be inaccurate and unfair, the conclusion that the Clintons' reoccupation of the White House would prove disastrously polarizing--and just plain bad for the country--was inescapabale.
Finally, I've stated here several times that even though I don't believe Bush has been a particularly good president, I certainly don't hate him. In fact, I have a great deal of admiration for him and the entire Bush family.
Jer
By the way, there were opposite political dynamics with respect to my parents and yours. Mine were conservative Republicans...[My father died twenty years ago, but my Mom will still be voting Republican this year.] My brother, sister, and I remain proud Democrats, except I may be a deserter this time. My parents did start out, however, as New Deal Democrats. I remember at age five going door-to-door with my mother campaigning for Adlai Stevenson over Ike. A lot of good that did.
Ha!
January 27, 2008 - 23:16 ET by candanceIt looks like Hillary is reaping the harvest of her little temper tantrum she threw at Russert last year. Since then he's really been mean to her.
candance...
January 28, 2008 - 09:09 ET by motherbeltEvery time I see "Ha!!" I have a mental flash of Chris Matthews saying that with his wide-eyed, wide-mouth countenance. LOL!
Could someone please pass me the toilet paper?
January 27, 2008 - 23:17 ET by JoggerNotHistory Shows Again, and again how nature points out the follies of man..boc
GO GO
January 28, 2008 - 13:55 ET by fonzie2178GODZILLA! Sorry I couldn't help myself :-)
Can't say I buy the accusation that Clintons injected race
January 27, 2008 - 23:37 ET by krendlerI'm no fan of the Clintons but I can't say I buy any of this stuff about them injecting race into the campaign.
The first instance where I heard someone make that charge (reported right here on NewsBusters on Jan 9) was when Donna Brazile (being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer) commented on Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark. She said that "as an African American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing". To Blitzer's credit, he asked the obvious question, "Why as an *African American* were you offended?". I won't copy and paste her rather lengthy response here (you can read it it the Jan 9 article) but, suffice to say, she didn't say a single word to justify *HER* introduction of race into the matter. Didn't even touch on it, completely avoiding Blitzer's question. I suspect a brutally honest answer would have been something along the lines of "Obama's black. I'm black. And I don't like the white guy criticizing him like that." - Instead, Brazile simply didn't respond. Very telling.
Also, if you go back and look at all of these supposedly race-tained comments made by the Clintons, you'd be very hard-pressed to pick out any loaded words or phrases. But you hear a lot of the talking heads saying "No, there's nothing *overtly* racial in what the Clintons said, but the Clintons are very savvy and they're using special CODE WORDS that have special significance to the black community." Again, this makes zero sense. We're supposed to believe they're using these code words, that only blacks "understand" for *what* purpose exactly? To offend them and lose their vote?
And these code words are things like "fairytale", "kid" and "drugs" (in how many campaigns has possible past drug use been mentioned without accusations of racism occuring)?
Generally, I do think race-baiting is happening here alright. But the Clinton's aren't the culprit.
We're supposed to believe
January 28, 2008 - 10:10 ET by motherbeltWe're supposed to believe they're using these code words, that only
blacks "understand" for *what* purpose exactly? To offend them and lose
their vote?
Possibly. The Clintons are nothing if not ruthless. It would not be a problem for them to alienate the black community if they thought they could get enough backlash from whites to make up for it (e.g. Bill's "Sister Souljah" moment....he alienated a lot of blacks, but even more white voters thought "Yea! It's about time!") And they always figure they can get blacks back in the end (which, of course, they did back then).
And not code words that only blacks understand. The MLK remark was aimed at whites...King was a good speaker but it took a white President to get it done. As was comparing Obama to Jackson. That is NOT a favorable comparison, to white people.
Not a word...
January 28, 2008 - 00:41 ET by sherlock1about America in all of this, is there?
What we have here, folks, is the Dems getting upset because the Clintons are now starting to do to their party, what they did to America for years. That's why all of a sudden it matters to Dems so much, when up until a few months ago it was just stupid yokels shooting off their mouths about Hill and Bill.
Don't forget this come November.
Chancey the Obama... Being
January 28, 2008 - 06:34 ET by Jack BauerChancey the Obama... Being There: The Vacuity of Dope.
Careful what you wish for Republicans.
Hillary Clinton is the New Coke... she has the machine, she has the money, she has the power. But the folks she needs to succeed just don't like her brand and what they have to swallow with her.
She ain't no Classic Clinton.
Obama, however, wants to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony and get back to the garden.
He appears to be acting the empty can into which people want to pour all their drippy ideas. He's not really of course. He's just a retread "socialist" underneath.
However he will prove electable over any Republican at the moment, IMHO. There's something in the air here that crosses party lines. It's not particularly rational, but it is there -- and it has the media behind it.
Maybe lingering white guilt.
America is the forever young country. It was born out the vigor of youth challenging the old. New ideas about the people governing for themselves. It always values the energy and committment of youth. It will always embrace this idea.
And if it's new, fresh Obama v old rambling, white guy McCain, then I'm thinking it's not far-fetached to see Obama in a LANDSLIDE.
Conservatives really need the Democrat candidate to be Clinton.
He appears to be acting
January 28, 2008 - 10:13 ET by motherbeltHe appears to be acting the empty can into which people want to pour all their drippy ideas.
Right, Jack. I didn't have the "Coke" analogy, so I wasn't thinking empty can. I was thinking "blank canvas" on which they can paint whatever picture they want. And because he speaks mostly in generalities, it's easy for people to do that.
Are conservatives so desperate...
January 28, 2008 - 06:51 ET by Kuso Jiji...to believe Russert and co. are putting the Clintons under the microscope because of journalistic integrity?
I think Russert and Dowd are shrewd enough to know Hillary doesn't stand a chance against John McCain in the general election. These two characters would be singing a different tune if Hillary was still the Democratic frontrunner and Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee was the likely Republican candidate.
BHO matches us nicely against McCain. Russert and Dowd are acting in the best interest of the Democrats yet again.
Again with the McCain
January 28, 2008 - 07:47 ET by motherbeltAgain with the McCain inevitablility!!! Her Royal Clintoness was supposed to be inevitable too!
It ain't over till it's over! - Yogi Berra.
Why do you think McCain is GOP frontrunner?
January 28, 2008 - 07:54 ET by PawpawNWhy do you think McCain is GOP frontrunner? You must believe all you read in MSM. Everything is so much up in the air for both parties. This early endorsing, etc., is just tearing both parties apart. We are getting to see just who the DIM party is, and the Repubs need to not listen to the MSM who want media darling McCain. It's time someone spoke about issues, other than Romney.
McCain vs. Broom Hilda....
January 28, 2008 - 16:38 ET by R D Helm....would be the pot running against the kettle. As far as I am concerned, they are two peas in a pod.
If we are, in fact, headed for amnesty for illegal aliens, tax increases, evironmental kook legislation, and whatever else the loony-left proposes, it would be far better for the republicans four years hence to have a democrat's signature on those bills than that of a "republican" pretender like McCain.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
The Clintons use people, one
January 28, 2008 - 11:13 ET by Chris NormanThe Clintons use people, one way or another. They used black support to get Bill elected. Now, they're using black support of Obama to get Hillary elected. In their charlatan ways, they're very consistent...
I'm not thrilled with any of the candidates
January 28, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Kuso JijiAmerican voters once again are going to be faced with voting for the lesser
of two evils when choosing the next president.
None of the current field of candidates on the Republican side are
worthy. Faced with the prospects of the Democrats running the government over the next 2 to 8 years, I'm choosing the
lesser of the Republican evils ahead of the general election.
Republicans would be wise to size up their candidate based on their ability
to defeat either of the two remaining Democratic nominees. I don't see either
Romney or Huckabee doing as well in the general election with independents as
McCain.
McCain is far from perfect but a little fact checking reveals a
conservative enough candidate capable of staying within the party lines.
I recommend pawpaw take his own advice and go beyond what he is being told by
Republican pundits and radio personalities or get used to the sound of
President Obama raising your taxes, acquiescing to the UN, restricting
your rights to personal protection, citizenship for illegals, the hard silence
of fairness doctrine and the further erosion of America's social fabric.