I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

We constantly allow other people to define us. If it's not the media, it's the Republicans with the media's help.

For months now the media, desperate to sell a story has fanned divisions in our party that simply weren't that bad to begin with.

I will tell you almost everyone I spoke with was OK with both Hillary and Obama months ago. Then the media dissatisfied with a sanguine contest, started setting the candidates after each other by trying to inflate the importance of each primary victory. To hear them tell it the primaries were always one vote away from being over. Never mind they called nearly all the contests wrong, they seemed to know what the American people were thinking and it was always on the verge of being over.

Soon they decided it was fun to proclaim that David (Obama) had slain Goliath(the Clintons) and began a story line that she was never going to win and was a spoiler when she won nearly half the vote. Why can't these idiots just report the news and keep their pundit traps shut??

They have been less prescient this cycle than a local weatherman. All they succeeded in doing was make the Hillary camp frantic and pissed off. Then they massaged that angst until the story became if Hillary isn't elected, Fuck Obama.

I wasn't always a Obama supporter, and I gotta tell you, I would have been delighted to vote for Hillary. I would like to see if Obama would be smiling so much if he endured the vicious attacks from the right for the last couple of decades that she has. And yet she survives as a formidable political force. Sure her husband snuck her in the door, but she has earned her spot on the national stage since then.

I fully believe her reticence to concede the other night was just an involuntary, knee jerk reaction to the months of people telling her to quit before it was appropriate.

Who can blame her, the press have been dogging her more interested in why she hadn't bent over than in what she had to say or offer.

And now we face the new story that unless Obama picks her as veep the party will fracture.

Well if Larry King and Wolf blitzer repeat it often enough, it may come true.

Please people, fellow Democrats, forgive and forget. McCain and the Republicans are the enemy, and we need every vote to beat them.

I really wish you had titled this one better, but you do make some interesting points in the body of your argument.

Hawk
I really wish you had titled this one better, but you do make some interesting points in the body of your argument.

You're right, I just was angry when I titled it. I get so dissappointed when I have to share a label with lazy thinkers who regurgitate punditry consensus and talking points.

The very definition of sheep in my opinion is Clinton supporters voting for McCain out of spite.

See, that's what really bothers me about the bipartisan system. People are supporting labels and names rather than people. If you ask me, the dangerous voters are the ones who blindly vote Democrat or Republican because that's what they've been trained to do. Nearly as bad is voting Democrat just because our current Republican president did such a poor job. You have to know who you're voting for, not vote for the opposite of what you think you hate. Clinton supporters voting for McCain out of spite is not only sheep, it's counteractive to the democratic process.

bobhhh
The very definition of sheep in my opinion is Clinton supporters voting for McCain out of spite.

I don't think this is going to happen, at least not THAT much. There was a lot of anger and bitterness after the Republican primary, and people at the time said "if my guy doesn't win, I won't vote for McCain," but people are coalescing around McCain now. (whatever McCain's lack of support now, I think, doesn't come from the bitterness of the primary but from the conservatives long-standing distrust of him, as well as the overall disappointment of Republicans in general about the economy and war)

Right now, the immediacy of grief and disappointment is making some Democrats say they'll vote for McCain over Clinton. And yes, there are some for whom this is true; for folks who are voting more for experience than policy, and those that can't bring themselves to vote for a black person. But I think this is the minority of Democrats.

To me, the bitterness of the Democratic primary really came about because of the lack of policy disputes between Obama and Clinton forced the primary to become more personal. Now that Obama and McCain are the presumptive nominees and voters can start seeing the huge difference between their policies, I think the vast majority of Democrats will come around. November is 5 months away, and that's an eternity in politics; a LOT is going to happen between now and then.

There's an old saying.

Democrats fall in LOVE, Republicans fall in LINE.

I guess we'll need to wait until November to see if it's true.

I really agree with the propostion that the bitterness felt now about Clinton and others will fade in the next five months. Lots of other stuff will happen and come out, maybe even an October surprise or two and all of this will seem like ancient history.

As far as Democrats being stupid, they ain't the only ones. There's plenty of stupidity to go around. Sometimes it seems elections are contests in how many stupid things will be believed and how many smart things can be obfuscated and forgotten.

He won't (can't) pick her as VP because having her on the ticket doesn't represent the kind of change he's been talking about. The Obama Campaign again came out stating that now they are the nominee, they won't take money from special interests, lobbyists, pacs-- and the DNC for the first time in forever came out and said they won't take money from special interests either---- Clinton was pretty much completely funded by special interests, and still would be willing to take money from them. She says they "represent" voters... BLAH.

What Obama CAN do with her is put her on in charge of the Universal Healthcare initiative, and let her be the champion of that. Mayhaps she can run again in 2016?

Kathleen Sybilis, the governor of Kansas, will likely be Obama's VP. It wasn't an accident that she gave the reply to the State of the Union this year talking about the type of change and leadership we need. The DNC plans these things very well.

There's an argument that Obama won't be able to pick a woman as his VP because it will lead to the "why not Hillary, then?" argument. Now, you or I could easily list the reasons "why not Hillary?" but, as bobhh points out, the media won't and we'll have a endless line of staunch Hillary supporters interviewed on how they are being screwed around with.

I honestly don't know enough about it, but I am positive that Hillary won't be VP. She burned that bridge last Tuesday when she pushed her erroneous "popular vote" message.

Obama won't name his Veep until he either needs a distraction, he needs a bump or just prior to the primary. I suspect it's already a fairly short list, though.

Obama and Hillary met at the Bilderberg conference thats happening NOW in VIRGINIA.

I wonder. Why does the mainstream media NOT COVER such an event? You got around a hundred of the world's richest and most powerful men getting together in secret.

Sure they're just talking about the weather and the movies and drinking beer.

There's nothing to worry about. Move on...

The press did report on their meetings last week. Over the weekend the news cycle quiets up. I'm certain the pundits will be all over it.

I'm certain Hilary will get something in the Obama administration. Something more powerful than the VP slot which is pretty wimpy compared to most Cabinet Sec'ys.

bravo1102
I'm certain Hilary will get something in the Obama administration. Something more powerful than the VP slot which is pretty wimpy compared to most Cabinet Sec'ys.

I saw an editorial suggesting that Obama should vow to pick Hilary Clinton as his first Supreme Court nominee, which I think would be awesome! I have no idea if she'd be interested, but she would be fantastic!!

I've been pretty much imune to the American media's nonsense about the whole thing since I live in Australia. and from here Hillary and Obamma look pretty much the same, ecspecially in comparison to Mcain. Voteing for Mcain becuase Hillary isn't running would be like pissing on a hotdog because there's no mustard (sorta).

BffSatan
I've been pretty much imune to the American media's nonsense about the whole thing since I live in Australia. and from here Hillary and Obamma look pretty much the same, ecspecially in comparison to Mcain. Voteing for Mcain becuase Hillary isn't running would be like pissing on a hotdog because there's no mustard (sorta).

In NYC they call vender hotdogs "dirty water hotdogs" The sauerkraut and onions hide the nitrogen/amonia smell and taste.

Even here in the USA Obama and Hilary's policies looked the same. It was almost "can you top how much I'll spend on social programs/raise taxes?" during the campaign. I'm glad Obama is out there on his own now.

Now if the Right-wing Talk show hosts would just stop screaming that he's a Marxist and get back to being entertaining and occasionally informative. ;)

Congressional vote wise, Obama and Clinton differed by a couple of votes. I think the thing that really made it hard for Clinton was her negatives and her unapologetic vote which paved the way for the war in Iraq, enabling pundits and congresscritters alike to go running off after their lost manhood.

Although I don't think letting a time-sensitive tax cut run out is exactly raising taxes. But the "They're gonna raise your taxes" Is the classic right wing boogyman. I guess "They're gonna borrow lots of money and make the dollar's value drop" just doesn't have the same oomph.

mapaghimagsik
But the "They're gonna raise your taxes" Is the classic right wing boogyman. I guess "They're gonna borrow lots of money and make the dollar's value drop" just doesn't have the same oomph.

McCain's already dangling that carrot. "Why should we allow our government to take more money out of our pockets?!"

Because our government NEEDS it, Mr. McCain. Desperately. You can keep talking, I'll just ignore you and take advantage of the drop in gas prices in October to make the GOP look good and vote Obama anyway.

Just you wait, Bush is gonna drag this war out until November. if Obama gets elected, he'll keep it going and make Obama be the one to admit defeat. Bush will be made by the GOP to admit it if McCain is elected, just you wait.

One pundit actually said that an Obama win means Bush might "do something drastic regarding Iran."



Stay classy!

edit: Ask and ye shall receive!

Daniel Pipes says so in a national review article


What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he'll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.

mapaghimagsik
One pundit actually said that an Obama win means Bush might "do something drastic regarding Iran."



Stay classy!

Now that genuinely scares me. I'm already worried that he'll freak out and use his 90 days on Iran anyway. Where's the pundit that theorized this?

Added in my edit. Enjoy!

Is that, like, a threat? Wow, talk about sinking to a new low...

I guess I just hope everybody in the country is tired enough of Bush that they'll be convinced to go liberal this time around. I know that's what it is for me.

Nothing will ever convince me to go liberal...but I am tired of President Bush.

I'm debating between writing in Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck for President...or maybe I will write in a DD character, like I hinted before.

I'm undecided on who I'm going to write in! lol!

CoyoteLongshot
Is that, like, a threat? Wow, talk about sinking to a new low...

I guess I just hope everybody in the country is tired enough of Bush that they'll be convinced to go liberal this time around. I know that's what it is for me.

What's funny is there's never been a liberal candidate. Democratic positions are all over the board, with the Blue Dogs caucusing with the Republicans and then there was Paul Wellstone, who said he represented the democratic side of the democratic party.

The fact that the Democrats didn't shut down the senate and house until Habeas is a pretty good demonstration that the Democrats are not Liberals. The near democratic capitulation on FISA is another.

To me, being liberal means that individual liberty is protected -- that means the right to choose, and that my government can't spy on me without a warrant.

I also like lead free food and toys.

But I think claiming them as liberal values is selfish. I think of them more as human values.

mapaghimagsik
What's funny is there's never been a liberal candidate. Democratic positions are all over the board, with the Blue Dogs caucusing with the Republicans and then there was Paul Wellstone, who said he represented the democratic side of the democratic party.

The fact that the Democrats didn't shut down the senate and house until Habeas is a pretty good demonstration that the Democrats are not Liberals. The near democratic capitulation on FISA is another.

To me, being liberal means that individual liberty is protected -- that means the right to choose, and that my government can't spy on me without a warrant.

I also like lead free food and toys.

But I think claiming them as liberal values is selfish. I think of them more as human values.

it sounds to me like your not claiming liberal values so much as you are claiming libertarian values,
and as for everyone who is extolling the virtues of Democrats(thats fine, but many Democrats have policies on the internet that they want to implement that will make sites like our beloved drunk duck impossible without a fee (passed on to the user)
Republicans are not innocent either, many of them want to implement policies that would censor the internet. Point being: be careful who you vote for, and that includes more than just the future president. personally I vote for whoever "nannies" people the least. Rules are for people who cant control themselves!

I have libertarian tendencies, but see most self-proclaimed libertarians to miss some important aspects of reality. But mostly, libertarians see only one half of "From each according to their ability/to each according to their need"

So I'm definitely a liberal.

I just want whoever gets elected to not be the death of me. As it is this little recession thing has put me out of work, our of school, and soon out of home. When you can't get a job at a McDonalds, you know you're in terrible shape.

bobhhh
We constantly allow other people to define us. If it's not the media, it's the Republicans with the media's help.

Please people, fellow Democrats, forgive and forget. McCain and the Republicans are the enemy, and we need every vote to beat them.

First of all, the media as a whole is as liberal as the day is long with the exception of many Internet sources, some newspapers, and sects of talk radio.


Elaborate on your final statement if I can bother you to do so. What makes them the "enemy" as in the terms you put it?

Gamers Anonymous
First of all, the media as a whole is as liberal as the day is long with the exception of many Internet sources, some newspapers, and sects of talk radio.

Which is just as idiotic a statement.

The media is liberal? Really?

I suppose they didn't constantly broadcast the swiftboat liars in 2004, or call Kerry a flip flopper when George Bush has flipped flopped on more things.

I suppose that's why the 'liberal' media failed to report ANYTHING on the Senate report that proves the Bush administration knowingly lied to us about the reasons for war.

I suppose that's why they are broadcasting, over and over again, totally untrue rumors of Obama being a Muslim, not pledging allegiance to the flag, not wearing a stupid lapel pin, swearing in on the Koran, etc.

I suppose every single one of those 'liberal' media outlets didn't hold on to the Reverend Wright "story" and milk it for all it was worth.

I suppose that's why George Bush, the worst president this country has ever had, is still not impeached.


C'mon man, get a clue.

Let's refine the statement. The majority of journalists when polled as to their political views define themselves as "liberals" (and in the US, members of the Democratic party)

Being human some of this bias does creep into their reporting. The existence of a "liberal" media is highly exaggerated, but it is documented.

To use your example "swiftboating" was first reported on "alternative" media talk radio, internet etc. and was so prevelent the regular media was backed into reporting it. The same was true with some of President Clinton's more sorrid affairs.

But defining the entire media as "liberal" is an exaggeration and is primarily a reaction from conservatives who don't see their voice represented in news reporting. (This goes back to at least Reagan. I have a long memory. Carter was soft-pedaled and Reagan was slammed. With no alternative media to present an opposing view I hated Reagan. Living through something is a lot different from reading about it, the whole secondary versus primary sources)

Media has always been (but is now inextricably) tied to popular opinion. Usually the most popular news sites reflected the opinion of the populace.

Nowadays, of course, they actually test how a story will play with the average Joe and skew it to attract more viewers.

It is not a coincidence that when everyone in this country decided to be retarded and pretend like our international affairs for the past 50 years had nothing to do with 9/11, FOX News rose in popularity. They pushed the idea that there was absolutely nothing behind the terrorist act except religious ideology and "evil."

Now, 6 years after another failed war, MSNBC is seeing a ratings increase when they skew slightly (very slightly) to the left. No surprise, the retards who thought the earlier stuff now are starting to think that something got messed up.

But all of these retards don't understand that media is corporate and will tell you whatever will make them money. And money is made by networks and newspapers when people read their content and soak up the advertising around it.

There is very little difference today between network programming for entertainment and for news, because profits always trump truth.

Sorry about the politically incorrect usage of "retard", but I really believe it is rooted in backwards or inhibited thinking, and the term fits too well.

SpANG

Gamers Anonymous
First of all, the media as a whole is as liberal as the day is long with the exception of many Internet sources, some newspapers, and sects of talk radio.

Which is just as idiotic a statement.

The media is liberal? Really?

I suppose that's why George Bush, the worst president this country has ever had, is still not impeached.


C'mon man, get a clue.

You must be joking. You so completely swung and missed on what I said. Much of what you listed was either not even newsworthy to begin with or are statements at which I would hold you to back up with actual data and sources.

Here's a clue for you. The media beating a story about Barrack Obama being a Muslim or a story about Jeremiah Wright isn't the media being conservative. It's the media trying to liven up the then rivalry between him and Hillary. Don't then sit there and act like they haven't taken shots at Dubya or are "protecting" him. Far from it. For example (and to also hit a story they really milk to death, to kill two birds with one stone as the saying goes), look no further than their incessant reporting of his ghastly approval rating. This, all the while, with little or no mention of the ratings of our glorious Democrat controlled Congress, which are ironically tanking worse than his.

With that, I have a little challenge for you if indeed my statement is so idiotic. Find for me three truly conservative major news networks. Find me three truly conservative major newspapers. You will fail for one very notable reason. What you think is conservative and what is actually conservative are two very different things...oh so very different.

As to your last point regarding the worst President in history, I'd have to cast my vote for Buchanan, Harding, Clinton, or Carter before Bush.