As the nation moves forward in the process of nominating a Democratic Party candidate to run in November's general election, it's important to keep on the true path of... well, truth. The following points have been endlessly echoed through the media despite their inaccuracy. So here's my attempt at separating reality from rhetoric:
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton got the double-digit win she needed in Pennsylvania to prove she's turned it around and has a chance.
Reality #1: HILLARY WON THE PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY BY 9% WHICH IS SINGLE DIGITS. Technically, 9.4%. And last time I was in a math class, you round .4 down, not up. Spin it all you want, but the difference between Clinton's and Obama's vote totals is less than 10%.
Reality #2: Hillary was expected to win this primary, by pretty much the final margin of victory. Yes, Obama closed the margin from initial polls that projected a Clinton win by anywhere from 18-26%... but the most recent polls have predicted a margin of anywhere from 6-12%. Oh, and despite the odd poll result, the majority have consistenly picked Clinton over Obama since they began polling in Pennsylvania.
Reality #3: You cannot use the results of a single primary to make the conclusion of a momentum shift. Remember Hillary's "big comeback" last month? The end result of the four primaries was a net gain of six delegates. The truth is, the primary race seems more provincial than sequential. Last December Obama's camp predicted the outcomes of each primary up to the convention, and all have come true with one or two exceptions (I remember Missouri being one, I forget what the other was). Chris Matthews read the list on his show a few months ago, and it went along the lines that have been the same factors in these recent primaries.
Reality #4: Hillary Clinton has no shot at overtaking Obama in the delegate count. Given the DNC's representative awarding of delegates, even a landslide win at this point won't generate enough delegates to close the gap. Same with the popular vote.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Michigan primary.
Reality: HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT WIN MICHIGAN. Trust me, I was there at the polling booth on primary day. My choices were Mrs. Clinton, "Uncommitted" or one of the Republican candidates. The leading democrats (Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson), in a move that would "undercut the validity of the contest", agreed to withdraw from Michigan's January 15 primary. not to campaign in the state and ignore the primary's results. All Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke DNC rules by moving its primary ahead of February 5. Yet she conveniently decided to keep her name on the ballot. At the time Hillary defended her actions by saying, "I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, in this election they're having, it is not going to count for anything." Boosted by the ego gratification of winning an uncontested election, she has since claimed "victory" in the state and argued that the DNC seat delegates and count the election results "as is". She now says, "I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." Yet no one in the media questions her on this flip-flop.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Florida primary.
Reality: Hillary Clinton finished first in a primary that was ruled invalid weeks before Election Day. Thousands of residents failed to turn out, knowing their votes would not be counted. And the candidates--Hillary included--agreed not to count the Florida results, and not to campaign in the state. But as was the case in Michigan, Hillary's manipulative instincts got the better of her as she flew in ostensibly for a "campaign dinner" the day before the primary, yet turned the tarmac into photo op as she emerged from the aircraft waving and smiling at every camera. This, to Mrs. Clinton, is her idea of "not campaigning". Whether she would have finished first had the primary never been ruled invalid is hard to say. In other words, she may have, but we'll never know. And any thought of a do-over in either state makes no sense, since it disregards the people who crossed over and voted Republican, not to mention Senator Edwards and Governor Richardson no longer being involved.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won Texas.
Reality: OBAMA WON TEXAS. Despite 100,000 fewer votes, Barack gained 99 delegates to Clinton's 94. Last time I checked, the party determines its nominee by delegate count. So Obama's five-delegate win in the Lone Star State should be acknowledged. Surprisingly, few outlets have even reported this fact much less acknowledged it. And all the while, Clinton supporters claim this "victory" as further proof that Obama cannot win in the "big states", with nary a sniff of rebuttal from the media. Shocking.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton wins the big states, such as California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Florida--something Barack Obama cannot do.
Reality: As we've just showed you, Hillary has no right to include Michigan and Florida, and Obama has more of a claim to Texas than she has. That's for starters. Now remove New York from the list since it's her home state (the same rationale used by Clinton to discredit Obamas big-state win in Illinois). That leaves Ohio and California. Ohio isn't as big as Texas, which as we've already said is Obama's to claim. So that leaves California--a significant win by Hillary, explained in part by her husband's incredible popularity in the state (as evidenced by convincing wins in '92 and '96). There's no disputing her win in the Golden State. But this one win doesn't and shouldn't label her as the "big-state" candidate. (And all experts assure us that whoever the Democratic nominee may be, they will defeat McCain in Cali.)
Rhetoric: Barack Obama is an elitist.
Reality: These claims are being leveled by the two remaining candidates, each of which could buy and sell Obama many times over, according to recently released tax returns. The Clintons claimed 10 times the income of the Obamas over the past seven years. And despite her most recent incarnation as a "woman of the people", she's the same former First Lady who, weeks before having the entire White House Travel Office employees fired, said, "You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinkin of her as a human being.". As for McCain--who hasn't seen a lobbyist he didn't like--he has also amassed millions upon millions more than the Illinois Senator, and has displayed an ignorance of basic domestic economics that recalls fellow out-of-touch Republican George H.W. Bush's cluelessness regarding the price of a gallon of milk.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama's comments in San Francisco bely his elitism.
Reality: In the same city, Hillary said the following during a fund-raising event: "Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." If Obama was showing his true colors with his remarks, what does this say about Clinton's? Her quote is teaming with imperialist condescension. Yet for some reason, it has not been mentioned by the "mainstream" media. Wile Obama's comment, like scripture, has been analyzed and scrutinized and ultimately taken out of context to up the shock factor.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama can't handle tough questions, as evidenced by the recent ABC debate.
Reality: Obama's people aren't complaining about the tough aspect of the questioning. They're complaining first about fairness (for example, one candidate's husband's press secretary being allowed to serve as moderator), and second about the chosen topics (for example, Barack's supposed unwillingness to wear an American flag lapel pin, as oppposed to anything related to Bin Laden).
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton has an overall advantage in the popular vote.
Reality: She doesn't. In her recent speech Mrs. Clinton claims an advantage in the popular vote among all who have voted. Yet she continues to legitimize the invalid results in Michigan and Florida, where voters were told their primary wouldn't count, whereupon they either voted Republican or didn't vote at all. Once again, she is able to make this claim without being called out directly by the media. Gee big surprise.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama has been getting a "free pass" this election.
Reality: ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? He is getting it from ALL sides. From the Republicans, be it McCain's direct attacks or the right-wing media's unconditional support of Clinton. From his own fellow Democrats, where many of those considered the nucleus of his party are publicly tearing him apart. And even from the mainstream media--yes, the partisan left-wing media, whose ranks claim twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans--where both sides of the political spectrum, from the Fox News Channel to MSNBC, have confessed their love of the drama and strong ratings this prolonged race continues to deliver them. Which should explain those news shows that seem to be inventing topics about which to criticize Obama. And despite all the political waterboarding, each of these groups STILL think he deserves more attacks. It's horribly one-sided, yet the people who should notice are too busy taking part. The only people who aren't anti-Obama are those who have contributed to his campaign. Rarely have one million people felt so alone.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
ABC: acronym for Agenda Benefitting Clinton
You know, this is a defining moment in our nation's history. And I too wonder with anticipation: are we at the point where the voting public is finally smart enough to recognize a steaming pile of shit when it's served to them--even when the hosts are calling it plum pudding?
Today, the day after ABC's chillingly biased Pennsylvania Primary Debate, our electronic powers-that-be spin away at the countless objections from the Obama campaign, weaving them into whining far-left cries of "you're too mean!" Yet the point of contention was not the hard line of questioning. It was the fact that only one candidate was subjected to them. A curiosity made downright scandalous by the fact that the debate was moderated by the other candidate's husband's press secretary.
Under the guise of a getting-at-the-tough-issues forum, this sham more closely resembled the Joseph McCarthy Senate hearings more than any exchange of ideas. A one-sided, accusation-rich witch hunt so partisan, Obama wouldn't have felt less comfortable in an interrogation room with a single lit light bulb swaying over his head.
I'm not part of the far left wing--I voted for Ronnie and W so I think that qualifies me as banned for life--so I take offense at the media's automatic categorization of anyone who didn't feel the debate was fair and accurate as such. Even now, long after the stage lights have faded in Philly, you still get the sense the media feels Obama is "getting off easy".
One one side, you have a woman who has hypnotically convinced the media to turn her lies--sorry, inaccurate recollections--about her trip to Bosnia qualifying her to be our Commander-In-Chief, into an old topic we need to get past. On the other, you have a man who in a week's time will enter his third month of scrutiny regarding a sermon given by his former minister. Not his spouse, nor his running mate, nor a family member. His former reverend. Getting off easy? The guy is getting it from all sides: from his own party, from the opposing party, and from left- and right-wing media alike.
You see, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the nomination. But clearly, some of you Democrats weren't paying attention like you should have been. Shame on you! It's amusing the degree of ferocity displayed by those in "the establishment" with a clear stake in the primaries, particularly those in the left-wing media (read: Fox News). On the Hannity & Combs entertainment program, John Kasich, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, literally yelled out an accusation that the Democratic Party "has it in" for the Clintons. I love it when people play the victim card for perhaps the single most vindictive couple in modern American politics. Not only was the comment without merit; it also came the night after Hasslemania, the ABC-TV Pennsylvania Debate, where Hillary was able to read responses directly from 3x5 cards, as if on cue.
And Sean Hannity, the Peter Griffin of political news, has used his "Hannity's America" show as a platform to engage in topics of hearsay bordering on gossip, the likes of which one would only expect to find in an Olympia Dukakis movie. If you were real quiet, you could hear hair stylists all over town yelling "shut your yaps" at their TVs.
I'm not even sure that ABC's debate-turned-debacle has satisfied the mainstream media. These are the same folks who collectively turned tail and ran hours after the New York Times story broke concerning John McCain's questionable relationship with an oil corporation lobbyist. They cited insufficient evidence of a sex scandal, ignoring, in their hasty exit, the fact that an absence of proof of physical sex doesn't make his unethically close relationship with a female lobbyist--one whose client happened to be on the business end of legislation to which McCain's involvement would be critical--any less newsworthy.
This is the same media who has allowed Senator Hillary Clinton and her former-President husband dictate the course of this entire Democratic Primary. It's as if they wait for her campaign releases and run with them like the gospel. Last night Ms. Clinton got away with dropping yet another F-bomb (F as in Farakhan) in another attempt to strike fear and trepidation into Pennsylvania's mostly white voting public by tapping into their deepest prejudicial insecurities. Standing on a stump and proclaiming "This is not a campaign about race" is win-win for her; it makes her look fair while planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of undecideds.
Could it really, really be that this man--this man who's taken all their punches, who time and again refuses to take the bait and sink to mud-slinging, even when handed the topic of Hillary's fabrication of her Bosnia "experience"--strikes fear in the eyes of the establishment? And by establishment I mean everyone from the Clintons to the McCains, from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to George "Step-On-All-Of-Us" and Charles Gibson?
I'm sure we'll learn more after Pennsylvania, when Hillary wins the popular vote by roughly 10% (as polls suggested months ago and even Obama's campaign has acknowledged) while nearly breaking even in the electorals.
Today, the day after ABC's chillingly biased Pennsylvania Primary Debate, our electronic powers-that-be spin away at the countless objections from the Obama campaign, weaving them into whining far-left cries of "you're too mean!" Yet the point of contention was not the hard line of questioning. It was the fact that only one candidate was subjected to them. A curiosity made downright scandalous by the fact that the debate was moderated by the other candidate's husband's press secretary.
Under the guise of a getting-at-the-tough-issues forum, this sham more closely resembled the Joseph McCarthy Senate hearings more than any exchange of ideas. A one-sided, accusation-rich witch hunt so partisan, Obama wouldn't have felt less comfortable in an interrogation room with a single lit light bulb swaying over his head.
I'm not part of the far left wing--I voted for Ronnie and W so I think that qualifies me as banned for life--so I take offense at the media's automatic categorization of anyone who didn't feel the debate was fair and accurate as such. Even now, long after the stage lights have faded in Philly, you still get the sense the media feels Obama is "getting off easy".
One one side, you have a woman who has hypnotically convinced the media to turn her lies--sorry, inaccurate recollections--about her trip to Bosnia qualifying her to be our Commander-In-Chief, into an old topic we need to get past. On the other, you have a man who in a week's time will enter his third month of scrutiny regarding a sermon given by his former minister. Not his spouse, nor his running mate, nor a family member. His former reverend. Getting off easy? The guy is getting it from all sides: from his own party, from the opposing party, and from left- and right-wing media alike.
You see, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the nomination. But clearly, some of you Democrats weren't paying attention like you should have been. Shame on you! It's amusing the degree of ferocity displayed by those in "the establishment" with a clear stake in the primaries, particularly those in the left-wing media (read: Fox News). On the Hannity & Combs entertainment program, John Kasich, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, literally yelled out an accusation that the Democratic Party "has it in" for the Clintons. I love it when people play the victim card for perhaps the single most vindictive couple in modern American politics. Not only was the comment without merit; it also came the night after Hasslemania, the ABC-TV Pennsylvania Debate, where Hillary was able to read responses directly from 3x5 cards, as if on cue.
And Sean Hannity, the Peter Griffin of political news, has used his "Hannity's America" show as a platform to engage in topics of hearsay bordering on gossip, the likes of which one would only expect to find in an Olympia Dukakis movie. If you were real quiet, you could hear hair stylists all over town yelling "shut your yaps" at their TVs.
I'm not even sure that ABC's debate-turned-debacle has satisfied the mainstream media. These are the same folks who collectively turned tail and ran hours after the New York Times story broke concerning John McCain's questionable relationship with an oil corporation lobbyist. They cited insufficient evidence of a sex scandal, ignoring, in their hasty exit, the fact that an absence of proof of physical sex doesn't make his unethically close relationship with a female lobbyist--one whose client happened to be on the business end of legislation to which McCain's involvement would be critical--any less newsworthy.
This is the same media who has allowed Senator Hillary Clinton and her former-President husband dictate the course of this entire Democratic Primary. It's as if they wait for her campaign releases and run with them like the gospel. Last night Ms. Clinton got away with dropping yet another F-bomb (F as in Farakhan) in another attempt to strike fear and trepidation into Pennsylvania's mostly white voting public by tapping into their deepest prejudicial insecurities. Standing on a stump and proclaiming "This is not a campaign about race" is win-win for her; it makes her look fair while planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of undecideds.
Could it really, really be that this man--this man who's taken all their punches, who time and again refuses to take the bait and sink to mud-slinging, even when handed the topic of Hillary's fabrication of her Bosnia "experience"--strikes fear in the eyes of the establishment? And by establishment I mean everyone from the Clintons to the McCains, from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to George "Step-On-All-Of-Us" and Charles Gibson?
I'm sure we'll learn more after Pennsylvania, when Hillary wins the popular vote by roughly 10% (as polls suggested months ago and even Obama's campaign has acknowledged) while nearly breaking even in the electorals.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
I'm not saying... I'm just saying
Tid-bits too short to live as their own posts, yet need be said...
o Okay, so this McCain guy is really starting to creep me out. It's not the age thing, the pro-war thing, the Keating Five thing, the melanoma thing, the "lobbyists" he rolls with thing or even the I-still-need-to-be-educated-about-the-economy thing. It's his complete inability to flow with anything off a teleprompter. When he speaks he does that thing where he's looking toward you, somewhere in your general vacinity, but not directly at you. So it comes off like he's either perpetually aloof--not the ideal impression a 70-something presidential nominee should create--or fixated on the guy sneaking up behind you with a 12-inch cleaver in his hand. Either way, I don't think I can handle six more months of it.
o It's not that Hillary Clinton is cold and disingenuous. It's just... well, let's just say if you see her crying at a funeral, it's more likely the result of locking her keys in her car.
o While Clinton and McCain camps whine away about "unfair treatment", the media continues its open season on Obama--despite the slim pickins they have to work with. This past week, the Illinois senator was blasted for candidly referring to the response of the "typical white person" upon seeing African Americans on the street. Right-wing pundits used this as evidence of his latent hatred of white Americans. The mainstream outlets did what has become their wont: "innocently" float it out, ostensibly to "let you decide". Not acknowledging that the very credibility they give ridiculous stories like this one legitimizes them, thereby helping make up the public's mind for them. In all the coverage of this "atrocity", not once have the talking heads mentioned that one tiny piece of critical information... BARACK OBAMA IS WHITE! Bi-racial, technically, but he's as white as he is black. And if he's permitted to speak on behalf of the black man, so should he be allowed to speak for Caucasians. So tell them where they can stick their domo arigato, Mr. Mulato!
o Not only do the Clinton minions continually support her claim of "winning the big states" by including Florida and Michigan--states that just last October she proclaimed "do not count"--but they also falsely include Texas. According to msn.com numbers, Obama took 99 elected delegates from the Lone Star State, while Hillary gained just 94. In other words, despite her receiving 100,000 more votes (and a 51-47% advantage), the former First Lady lost where it mattered most: the almighty delegate. And we don't even know the extent of Obama's landslide win in the Texas caucus, where he currently leads 56-44%.
o All told, the Clintons falsely claim FIVE state primaries among their conquests: New Hampshire (widely accepted as her first "comeback" win, yet she and Obama actually tied with 9 delegates apiece); Nevada (despite Hillary's 51-45% advantage in the popular vote, Barack received 13 delegates to her 12); Florida (see above comment); Michigan (see above, noting that all other major candidates had removed their names from the Democratic side of the ballot); and Texas (Obama earned 5 more delegates in the state primary, and will also enjoy a sizeable caucus win once the final numbers are announced). So why do these false claims barely get a challenge from the media? Hmm???
o "BIG MO" UPDATE: It's April 3rd, and as of today Hillary's "I've still got it!" March primary comeback is as follows (according to the msn.com Election 2000 page):
Ohio = Clinton 75, Obama 66
Texas = Obama 99, Clinton 94
Texas caucus = Obama 56%, Clinton 44% (41% reporting; final results due very soon)
Vermont = Obama 9, Clinton 6
Rhode Island = Clinton 13, Obama 8
This collossal turnaround the media keep telling us about, officially amounts to two wins, three losses and a net gain of six delegates. And once the final numbers are in from the Texas caucus, even those may be gone.
o Every time I hear yet another outspoken Republican do the now-tired "Senator Osama...oops...I mean" bit, I can't help but wonder how their president justifies having a commander of American troops in Iraq by the name of General Betray Us.
Oops...I mean...
o Word is out about a new network reality show in the works. It involves regular people just like you and me, yet faced with a responsibility one wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. It's called "The Next Super Delegate"! You think Donald Trump is intimidating? Wait till you endure the terror of a 3:00 a.m. call--coming from a former President's red phone! Being on the business end of relentless verbal tirades vile enough to make Chef Ramsay blush, contestants test the limits of human endurance as they attempt to do the impossible: REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! It's the mother of all fear factors! And too much for me to bear. All things being the same, I'll stick to my bowl of crickets and eyeballs please.
o Okay, so this McCain guy is really starting to creep me out. It's not the age thing, the pro-war thing, the Keating Five thing, the melanoma thing, the "lobbyists" he rolls with thing or even the I-still-need-to-be-educated-about-the-economy thing. It's his complete inability to flow with anything off a teleprompter. When he speaks he does that thing where he's looking toward you, somewhere in your general vacinity, but not directly at you. So it comes off like he's either perpetually aloof--not the ideal impression a 70-something presidential nominee should create--or fixated on the guy sneaking up behind you with a 12-inch cleaver in his hand. Either way, I don't think I can handle six more months of it.
o It's not that Hillary Clinton is cold and disingenuous. It's just... well, let's just say if you see her crying at a funeral, it's more likely the result of locking her keys in her car.
o While Clinton and McCain camps whine away about "unfair treatment", the media continues its open season on Obama--despite the slim pickins they have to work with. This past week, the Illinois senator was blasted for candidly referring to the response of the "typical white person" upon seeing African Americans on the street. Right-wing pundits used this as evidence of his latent hatred of white Americans. The mainstream outlets did what has become their wont: "innocently" float it out, ostensibly to "let you decide". Not acknowledging that the very credibility they give ridiculous stories like this one legitimizes them, thereby helping make up the public's mind for them. In all the coverage of this "atrocity", not once have the talking heads mentioned that one tiny piece of critical information... BARACK OBAMA IS WHITE! Bi-racial, technically, but he's as white as he is black. And if he's permitted to speak on behalf of the black man, so should he be allowed to speak for Caucasians. So tell them where they can stick their domo arigato, Mr. Mulato!
o Not only do the Clinton minions continually support her claim of "winning the big states" by including Florida and Michigan--states that just last October she proclaimed "do not count"--but they also falsely include Texas. According to msn.com numbers, Obama took 99 elected delegates from the Lone Star State, while Hillary gained just 94. In other words, despite her receiving 100,000 more votes (and a 51-47% advantage), the former First Lady lost where it mattered most: the almighty delegate. And we don't even know the extent of Obama's landslide win in the Texas caucus, where he currently leads 56-44%.
o All told, the Clintons falsely claim FIVE state primaries among their conquests: New Hampshire (widely accepted as her first "comeback" win, yet she and Obama actually tied with 9 delegates apiece); Nevada (despite Hillary's 51-45% advantage in the popular vote, Barack received 13 delegates to her 12); Florida (see above comment); Michigan (see above, noting that all other major candidates had removed their names from the Democratic side of the ballot); and Texas (Obama earned 5 more delegates in the state primary, and will also enjoy a sizeable caucus win once the final numbers are announced). So why do these false claims barely get a challenge from the media? Hmm???
o "BIG MO" UPDATE: It's April 3rd, and as of today Hillary's "I've still got it!" March primary comeback is as follows (according to the msn.com Election 2000 page):
Ohio = Clinton 75, Obama 66
Texas = Obama 99, Clinton 94
Texas caucus = Obama 56%, Clinton 44% (41% reporting; final results due very soon)
Vermont = Obama 9, Clinton 6
Rhode Island = Clinton 13, Obama 8
This collossal turnaround the media keep telling us about, officially amounts to two wins, three losses and a net gain of six delegates. And once the final numbers are in from the Texas caucus, even those may be gone.
o Every time I hear yet another outspoken Republican do the now-tired "Senator Osama...oops...I mean" bit, I can't help but wonder how their president justifies having a commander of American troops in Iraq by the name of General Betray Us.
Oops...I mean...
o Word is out about a new network reality show in the works. It involves regular people just like you and me, yet faced with a responsibility one wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. It's called "The Next Super Delegate"! You think Donald Trump is intimidating? Wait till you endure the terror of a 3:00 a.m. call--coming from a former President's red phone! Being on the business end of relentless verbal tirades vile enough to make Chef Ramsay blush, contestants test the limits of human endurance as they attempt to do the impossible: REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! It's the mother of all fear factors! And too much for me to bear. All things being the same, I'll stick to my bowl of crickets and eyeballs please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)