Media Fairy Tale

Well I am not sure why the national media has turned so vicious against the Clintons but they obviously have.

Even the progressive talk show hosts on Sirius Left keep saying/implying they are racist, etc.

For example, they said Bill's comment about Jesse Jackson winning the Dem Primary in SC in 88 was a racist comment.

But I had already made the same observation on here.

It is not racist to point out that Obama got 80% of the black vote there and in a state that has blacks making up 50% of the Dem votes you do the math.

So Obama's coronation is not a done deal, imo.

I still think Edwards will have enough delegates to deadlock the convention.

Especially with two big states like Michigan and Florida having their delegates in limbo by defying party rules and holding early primaries.

Here is one possible scenario:

http://thehill.com/content/view/71005/70/1/0/

Clinton used the race card both to lower expectations in South Carolina and to warn white folks that blacks were voting as a bloc. That subtle and unspoken warning can certainly be construed as racist. Jesse Jackson entered into this as a result of a question to Clinton:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

The question had to do with two Clintons. Jackson had not been mentioned until Clinton brought him up. The mention of Jackson's name is racist? Yes. If there was no black insecurity and no white guilt, there would be no Jesse Jackson. He exists only to profit from racial disharmony.

Well OC I see the point you are making but I think sometimes people stifle their own legitimate thoughts and observations for fear of being labeled racist.

Do you think I was racist when I pointed out that Jackson also won the SC primary handily?

It seems to me that Obama wanted to be the black candidate in SC.

But it could very well hurt his chances elsewhere.

Do you think I was racist when I pointed out that Jackson also won the SC primary handily?

No, but you're not cynical and power mad. No, the numbers don't lie and the numbers aren't racist. Jesse Jackson carried South Carolina in '84 and '88. But if you were asked that question, wouldn't it be a strange answer to give? He was asked if it took two Clintons to beat one Obama. His answer was that Jesse Jackson won SC in '84 and '88. How does that answer the question? What other reason would there be to answer that way than to insinuate that black voters will vote for a black candidate? What is the desired result? To create fears of black bloc-voting and canceling out white candidates. What is the motive?

shermangeneral wrote:Here is one possible scenario:

http://thehill.com/content/view/71005/70/1/0/

First Sherm, I don't think a brokered convention will happen but time will tell. But if it does, can you imagine the outrage if the party picked a white man who got less then 20% of all democratic votes over the first viable female candidate AND the first viable black candidate?

Not only would Edwards NOT win the election, it would be the end of the Democratic Party as you know it.

I'm all for it.

Why use the word insinuate?

I think it would be a perfectly natural tendency.

I think the motive is to just point out the facts.

The media is playing this out to be like such a great accomplishment and a tsunami of public opinion, etc.

When in fact Jesse Jackson did the same thing in SC 20 years ago.

Aaron it sounds like you did not read the link.

shermangeneral wrote:Aaron it sounds like you did not read the link.

Yes Sherm, I read the link. I just don't believe that Edwards, who is a self centered, conceited and narcissistic, liar, will throw his support behind anyone else. He knows right now that he’s not relevant and that he can't possibly win nomination so he's hoping he can hang around long enough and keep Hillary and Obama from winning and that he will then picked to be the nominee.

If he truly wanted to support Obama, he would drop out today and throw his support behind Obama.

Well they do other things at the convention besides just pick a nominee, Aaron.

And if you go to the convention with a few hundred delegates that will swing it one way or the other then you might be asked for your opinion and input on things.

You do realize that no one in the Democratic Party can stand John Edwards, don't you Sherm!!! They view him in about the same light I do. I don't think many in the party will be seeking his opinion.

Well I am not sure why the national media has turned so vicious against the Clintons but they obviously have.

Perhaps the national media has finally come to realize just how ruthless the Clintons are.

Well Steph to stand a chance against folks like Karl Rove and some of them you have to be tough and ruthless as they are.

They see Obama as tender meat imo.

So they keep building him up just to tear him down wait and see.

Karl Rove is a journalist. What are you afraid of? He'll write something about you?

Check this out:

[url]http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510[/url]

I don't know what it is with that url. I copied it right off my address bar...

ohio county wrote:Karl Rove is a journalist. What are you afraid of? He'll write something about you?

Maybe Karl Rove will publish a piece calling Sherm a Reagan loving closet Republican.

You know how you can tell Hilliary is lying? Her lips move....
- Steve, NAshua

lol

Well I gotta go but for Aaron I guess just wait and see how many delegates Edwards has at convention time.

You could be right I dont have a great track record of predicting. It is just my opinion.

ohio county wrote:Check this out:

[url]http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510[/url]

I don't know what it is with that url. I copied it right off my address bar...

But what if she does get the delegates reinstated OC. It will certainly be a coup for her, won't it.

But what if she does get the delegates reinstated OC. It will certainly be a coup for her, won't it.

Yes. Although they're still listing Florida's delegate number as 0, they have moved Michigan to 157. I got to believe the total of Michigan and Florida would exceed NY's 280.

She knew what she was doing when she didn't pull her name off the Michigan ballot.

shermangeneral wrote:Well I gotta go but for Aaron I guess just wait and see how many delegates Edwards has at convention time.

You could be right I dont have a great track record of predicting. It is just my opinion.

Right now Edwards has 61 delegates, or 13.8% of the total commitment. As the highest I've seen him poll is around 15% in any state, I hardly see how he can get to 808, which is what he would need to be at 20% of the final. The math just isn't there.

ohio county wrote:Check this out:

[url]http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510[/url]

I don't know what it is with that url. I copied it right off my address bar...

Try tinyurl. www.tinyurl.com