That damned liberal media...

I can see the GOP's campaign commercial now if Hillary WERE to win the nomination.

They first show Hillary back in the 90's at the end of Bill's term, saying something about there being a Right Wing Conspiracy against her and Bill --- then they cut to stories like this one where Hillary claims the Media Want Her to Lose.

Given her singularly bone-headed approach to Wisconsin (essentially concede the state to Obama weeks ahead of the race when it was still really up in the air, and then only return to waste a good deal of money and time in the last days when it is already as much as lost), I am not sure that the media are the only ones who want her to lose. She rather gives that impression herself.

She can't lose, she's just like Tracy Flick:
http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786

I know the clinton people don't believe this but she has gotten a total free pass from the right-wing corporate media. They have only reported the ridiculous mistakes made by the clintons like her flopping all over the place on that debate question in october, which incidentally signaled the beginning of the end, the kindergarten thing, the money problems, etc. Pretty much all that was reported were mistakes by the clintons.

Has there been one gd, f*cking, gd report on her gd "experience." The media keeps saying she is the "experienced" candidate and obama is allegedly inexperienced. Is that fair coverage for obama? Is that accurate of clinton? How about one gd, f*cking, gd report on her gd senate record? Just one. The clintons went through 4000 obama votes in the illinois senate and found nothing and fed the story to the times. How about some reports on clinton's gd record? She has gotten an unbelievable free ride, but the voters are smarter and ahead of the bs media.

I find this line of attack by the clintons so republican and so laughable. She should have run in the republican primary.

they should have started this much earlier. conservatives have been complaining to the ref (i.e. media) for a long time and it does pay off a bit. even now we see some more critical stories of obama. had they been more forceful earlier on it might have not smacked of desperation.

After her campaign collapsed of its own ineptitude and arrogance and she turned into a hideous parody of every Republican caricature ever made of her - Jesus, aren't we ALL looking forward to this thing ending?

While Wolfson et al may have a point, it is also clear that the media has shown some restraint and deference towards the Clintons. There have been only the vaguest mentions of all the Clinton-era scandals and investigations in the media, even though I think it would be reasonable to raise them in the context of Hillary running for President, and the Clintons' continued penchant for secrecy and parsing that is evident in her current campaign.

I watched the debate on Saturday Night Live too, and I have to agree with the Clinton campaign.

So at last Hillery has figured it out: It is "The Media" that is making all those Obama supporters "Delusional". Good one.

From the desk of Mark Poison Penn

Telling the voters to "get real" was turned on us, by Senator Obama, so we must now blame The Media for brainwashing those voters.

Contact The Media and ask them to be so kind as to help us get the word out to the public that we know that The Media has caused Senator Clinton to fall behind, against Senator Obama.

PS. Please thank The Media for helping us to get this message to the voters.

Finally, When we blame The Media, we exclude Greg Sargent from all such criticism. He has been a rock. Without his help we would never have been able to get the term "Muslim garb" launched.

the media doesn't matter?

Actually, I think it is a good line of attack. Choosing between Obama and Clinton was a close call for me. The urge to get back at the media tipped the scales for me and I voted Clinton in the Maryland primary.

I think David Kurtz has the better of this one, Greg. It should be "The Media want her to lose," not "The Media wants her to lose." "Media" is the plural of "medium."

Didn't Rove just blame the Media for the Iraq war turning into a quagmire?

Yeah, that anti-Hillary media, what with its little interactive polls asking whether Obama is patriotic enough and the Nedra Pickler stories validating all of the wingnut talking points about Obama. Hillary has a right to be outraged!

Sorry, Hillary....but not every reporter can be Taylor Marsh.

Blame the voter isn't working. So this is the new strategy. I seem to recall one time when Hillary made a huge effort to give the press donuts or something... maybe a few months back.... and I guess they were supposed to get the hint.

I guess if they're going to lose, they'd rather that it be a quiet affair, unnoticed, unpublicized. But if you want that, don't run for high office. Cuz if you lose, well, it's not a secret!

So, while she was "inevitable" and the 'front runner" according to all the networks, who took that inevitability meme she press-released as their own, that was OK.

Now that some of the media see the writing on the wall and have stopped kowtowing her campaign, the media is suddenly her enemy again?

FOX & CNN not only wanted HRC as the nominee (for different reasons of course), but they were fully promoting and rooting for it, along with the match up being HRC vs. Rudy. They barely could let Rudy go even after he actually lost Florida.

I guess my point is that some media people STILL cling to HRC as being a possible "comeback kid" (CNN) by consistently changing the bar for her.

"Must win OH & TX BIG", to "must win OH & TX" to "must win either/or".

They want her to lose? Give me a fucking break.

Barack is right. Had he lost 11 straight like Hillary (and lost them as HUGE as she did), the press & the Democratic party would be pushing him to withdraw.

I am not the media, but I cant wait for Hillary's campaign is in the tank. It's Hillary the person that America is rejecting.

So far the voters seem to want her to lose. That can't be helping either.

Nattering nabobs of negativity...when all else fails and inevitable nominee is on the ropes.. the Clinton campaign channels Spiro Agnew?

I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed political gurus that the SNL writing staff has become their respected campaign manager.

I agree with Grover M but add a more basic point: one thing that qualifies a good president is ability to manage the press. Obama's purported "free pass" is, to the extent it exists, just proof he knows how to handle this branch of our society. If Hilary's "experience" hasn't taught her how to get good press when she needs it, then that reflects on her qualifications for the job she's running for.

Not a level playing field? Too bad--that's the field you're on. Play it.

Liam, you're not being fair. Eric and Greg have both worked hard at this and, like it or not, they don't shill for Obama any more than they do for the HRC campaign. You want biased, go see Slate- I only go there for Doonsbury now.

I agree with one of the commenters above. As the Clinton campaign has become more of a train wreck, the media is engrossed in that story and started to jump on it. But for months and months, Clinton has gotten an absurd pass from the media on almost everything else.

Clinton's husband, and chief camapign surrogate, was impeached. That in itself is an extraordinary fact that is treated as some kind of taboo subject by the media. Clinton claims her active involvement in that administration as a big part of her experience. And yet have we seen any major media reviews of the events leading up to the Bill Clinton impeachment? Have we seen any major media examination of Hillary Clinton's role in those events? Isn't there something absurd in this? Have we seen any really prominent or sustained media examination of all of the various scandals that have dogged the Clintons? The ability of the Clinton machine to keep the media away from these issues has been extraordinary, as has been the media's compliance.

And it is ridiculous to start calling the media as a whole Matt Drudge's "assignment editor". Drudge, who runs a prominent website, claimed that the Clinton campaign was distributing that photo. The media then simply asked the Clinton campaign if that was true. Instead of saying "absolutely not," they spent most of a day deciding whether it was true or not. That's what kept that story going.

Waaahhh! Nothing is my fault! I'm perfect! It must be either stupid voters or the media!! Waaahhh!!!

Okay, seriously, this is the same media that hasn't questioned your "35 years of experience" once, nor have they fact checked your false claims about Obama, nor have they focused on your husbands more disastrous policies or your support of the Iraq war, or your flag burning vote, or how you are surrounded with lobbyists. You have gotten a free ride from the media Hillary, so quit your bitching.

I think it's safe to say that the media appreciates new blood. The Clintons have been around for so long that they command media attention, at least until someone steals the spotlight. That's what Obama did. Through October - when he didn't look like a viable candidate to most - he got the short end of the stick. Now he's a media darling because he's the come out of nowhere kid. Definitely doesn't hurt that he's a phenomonal speaker, attractive, and has created this groundswell of support.

Hillary isn't getting loads of love from the media. I think it's because her campaign has been a mess more recently and the media loves messy stuff. That kind of news sells. I think attacking the media is another failing strategy. What it does is keeps her in the news cycle and just maybe increases media pressure against Obama. But like her other recent grasps for straws, i think she'll come up empty handed.

God, the comments problems are worse than ever today - I practically have to log in after every comment I make. What's up??

Sen. Clinton's "hard" negatives have been around 50% nationwide for well over a year. Could it be that the press is merely accurately reflecting the widespread Clinton fatigue that is settling in over the country? If there were really out to vet them, they would press the CLintons on their refusal to release fianancial until AFTER she/they get the nomination, and on the highly secret (why??) donor list to the Clinton library. Pardons-for-gifts and trips to Kazakh autocrats on state dep lists netting $11.3 MILLION for "just being on the plane" deserve far more scrutiny from the press, esp. given Sen. Clinton's claim to be "vetted".

Why would the media not want her to drag out her losing campaign as long as possible? After all, the media demonstrably are enabling Nader to get in the race, with attention he doesn't in the least deserve. Why shouldn't they continue to hope she will help them sell their product, by continuing to be as entertaining as she's been in recent days?

A compassionate media might simply turn away. Except she clearly wants the attention. So she and her staff produce the tantrums, and the media rewards them by disseminating them. It's a perfect little ecosystem.

Hillary could not convincingly embody a Leader, so she reverts to Victim. It is this recurring behavior (it's not worth calling it a strategy) that has made many women lament that she became the first serious female candidate for president.

I am so sick of the canard that the press has let Obama off the proverbial hook. As Dodd made clear in his endorsement today, this campaign (courtesy of the Clinton camp) has tested him.

Anyone want to guess which crazy Hillary will show up at the debate tonight..?

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27358660

liam, that is one of the more idiotic bias claims I've ever heard, and there is no shortage of idiocy in this department. wolf blitzer and multiple other on air commentators used the term "muslim garb." you really think wolf was trying to "smear" obama?

I agree that Somali garb is more accurate, which is why I changed it. but to allege that the use of "muslim garb" reveals insidious bias and an effort to "smear" is just beyond ridiculous, sorry.

You know it's over when you are trying to spin your own epitaph.

That may have worked last week. Coming directly on the heels of the NYT hit job, no, it's not going to work now.
Besides, not running against McCain yet.....

Message to HRC: the Media doesnt' want you to lose... they just recognize the fact you are a loser...

Let's not forget that for most of 2007, Hillary didn't ALLOW reporters to ask her questions. She gave them no access.

It wasn't until later in the campaign that she decided to delight them with her presence.

Whatever the Clintons can't control, they attack. The inconvenient truth for them is that they have no eminent domain in the media. It's not their jurisdiction.

The media will always have a bias. It's the nature of the animal.

And it's really not their job to come up with a story that would help market Hillary more successfully.

Yes, by God and by damn, I voted for her in 2000 to represent *us*, New Yorkers, in the Senate, and for seven years going on eight, she has voted like a Tory. She's a Tory Democrat, like Nunn and Scoop Jackson used to be; she supposedly has all this Armed Services Committee experience but no one knows what it is, or at least no one talks about it; she voted for that stupid Flag-Burning Amendment, she's Out to Lunch on the Bill of Rights, she voted for the "Patriot" Act and for Lieberman's torture-is-okay-if language he tried to add to McCain's torture-is-not-okay bill, back when he still believed it wasn't. 06, I think.

And I haven't mentioned the You-Know-What. She's my Senator-- don't vote for her! Her "experience" really consists of learning how to butter up other senators, even get them to agree to do things, sort of like Lyndon used to do (I'm from Texas, originally). She might make a good Majority Leader, but, jesus, please, please if everyone would just accept what happened, we were supposed to just have a couple of elections then beat up on Hillary for eleven months, which believe me is what they had planned--but there was an outbreak of democracy in the Democratic Party, as happens periodically, and people chose something different.

And: used to, every State Senate District had three national delegates to apportion, always two to the winner and one to the loser, each district, you could phone it in and the rest of the delegation was chosen at the State Convention--and anyone who wanders in Tuesday night at 7:30 and hangs around long enough can get elected to their county or district convention and from there to the State Convention; but the extra delegates for districts that poll high proportions in votes for president or governor, really everything over three, is added on from the delegation so that there are fewer at-larges chosen at the StateCon.
It is to make it more of an incentive to vote again in the Dem Primary, give more of a voice, and also even a losing candidate can get an extra delegate or two out of a district with six or eight more easily than one with just three or four. This is what Obama did in NYS, it is what Clinton should do in Texas; I don't understand why they're complaining about the way the TDP selects its delegation.

Party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses: $100,000

Rooms at the Bellagio and four seasons: $30,000

Campaign expenditure on paid media: $ 3million

One million donors and half a million telephone calls by volunteers in two weeks: priceless

There are few things money can’t buy, for everything else there is Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson.

Is this strategy to lash out at the media and make even more enemies really going work?

Does she really expect all of us to rally around her after all these hit jobs here there & everywhere -- if she actually makes it to the General?

Just sayin.

HRC is a loser and will always be a loser... it is time to deal with reality folks.... her (my) generation is past our prime...

The media wants to send the Clintons back to that trailer park in Arkansas. Its time for good old fashion democrats like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman to be resurrected. I am sure Obama will be subserviant to the wishes of the liberal establishment, since they put him in the position he is in.
Besides, we need a cool candidate like Barack. This isn't some sort of meritocracy. Hell, Americans elected Bush....twice. We hate a know-it-all hysteric like HRC.
The media knows our country has grown weary of the know-it-all Clintons. Thank god that useful tool Barack came along to drive a stake in the heart of Clintonism. They never did us any good anyway.
This year we get a twofer, get rid of the Clintons, and assuage our liberal guilt by voting for Obama (a black muslim?) in the primary. Ain't America great????

Yee Haw, we are all losers.

I think they are absolutely correct. I think the press is reveling in her fall. It's terribly unfair.

It's also a real liability for her as a candidate not just in the primary in the general, if she gets there. This media bias is one thing that might prevent her from being able to beat McCain.

It's real and it's unfair and it makes Hillary extremely unelectable.

HRC's negatives seem to fluctuate between 45-50%, depending on who's doing the measurement. I live in GA and there is no doubt that, here at least, there are large numbers of people who will not vote for HRC under any circumstances. That's a lot of headwind.

Assuming she could even win the primary, she's going to have toxic coat-tails from those people who despise her--putting the Demos majority in Congress at risk in highly contested districts.

The arithmetic is pretty elementary, Obama is the obvious--and least risky--choice.

Guess that makes me yet another "filled with hatred against HRC" Obama supporter.

One area where the media is failing is by not demanding that the Clinton camp provide specifics to substantiate their claims of media bias. The media is diverse and not a unitary monolith. Make them provide specific cases and specific news organizations and journalists that show bias against Senator Clinton. I am not talking about commentators, because taking sides is what they do. I am taking about actual news reporting.

The Clintons tossing out the blank, blame the media, claim requires reporters to pin them down on specific examples of who, where, and when.

The Media is the NY Times. Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, MSNBC , NPR and on and on.

Does any one really believe that all such Media organizations are singing from the same political hymn book. It is absurd, and the fact that the Media has not called out the Clinton camp on such absurd claims, shows that they media is just a paper tiger, instead of a partisan pride of lions.

As to the question that Greg Sargent raised, namely, does complaining about her coverage do anything to help her campaign, I just don't know the answer.

I do think it's worth noting though that it has been a time worn and very effective strategy of many Republicans to "run against the media". On this particular issue, I see no reason that a Democrat shouldn't do the same thing if it works.

Ultimately, the appeal here may be directly to the voters, particularly if the campaign can get that message out to them in some effective way.

Of course, the real question is whether any of this can work in the very limited time Hillary has left to turn things around.

I think it is unfair to say the Media Wants Her To Lose. The polls are say the country wants Obama to win.
The way the Media covers politics like a sporting event ( or a drive by shooting ) just makes for sensational headlines. Pictures of Obama in a african garb, a bit of anger on the trail, a 3-week old flier become the sensation of the day. To say the Media wants her to loose is over the top. The Media only wants a good story to attract viewers - regardless of the consequences. If the media bother s one that much, it might be best to avoid the talking heads who make a living by sensationalizing this stuff.

Do you love it, Do you hate it, There it is the way you made it. Frank Zappa

Richardson endorsement imminent?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

That could be a big deal in Texas, especially for Obama.

Obama the Inevitable.

I guess I am paranoid. My fear is that all of Obama's fair weather friends will pack up their toys and go home sometime, say around September. I do not have confidence in a movement that is based on a media created perception of innevitablitiy. You may enjoy the media's adulation today, but tomorrow it will be you that is under the media's microscope, as they try to discern why these bright, seemingly engaged people, could have gotten behind such a hopeless candidate.

And of course, it will be the Clinton's fault. It will be blamed on the high disapproval ratings or some such nonsense. Try as you might to think you are better and smarter then the electorate of 2000, you will see you are no different. Barack is a nice man, somebody you could chill with. In 2000 Bush was a guy you would have a beer with, or whatever. America is full of suckers, and we keep proving it everyday. I sisncerely hope I hear lots of gloating in November, I want to be wrong about his. But I think you have been fooled my the media manufacterd perception on innevitability that Barack can win in November. Perception is not reality, and a mighty big test awaits barack and his supporters, I will be there fighting with you, but I will still proudly cast my protest vote in Texas for Hillary Clinton

If OB really wanted to put this “silly season” in perspective, and secure the nomination in the process, all he would have to do is take the stage tonight wearing a replica of that infamous turban, emblazoned with the octagonal “O” that is the icon of Ohio State University. Perhaps the Texas U icon would be better; he could give the camera the ol’ first and last finger extended, “Hook ‘em Horns!” gesture. Then he sits down, folds his hands and turns his profile to Hilly with that pensive “I’m listening” expression he uses when she is speaking. What ya got on yer mind, Senator Clinton?

C'mon, the notion the press is treating Senator Clinton unfairly is utter bull. She's gotten a totally free ride the past year from the press, which repeats -- like a mantra -- her claim that she is "more experienced" and "more substantive" and "more wonky" every chance they get.

When in reality her achievements are relatively modest (unless you seriously credit her with 50% credit for President Clinton's record, which doesn't make sense given how many achievements of his she now disowns, and doesn't hold water historically anyway) and frankly no better than Senator Obama's (who the press continues to portray as the "lightweight" of the two).

The only person I know who has given an in-depth, serious look at Senator Clinton's record in the Senate is Joshua Green, in the Atlantic magazine. Go read it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

Typical victim mentality - sad to say that it DOES work to manipulate the media and if anything, they have yielded to her tactics as they are more favorable to her. They always seem to frame any conversation with "What does hillary need to do?" Bla bla bla...Come on now! It's ridiculous!

If it were the other way around and Obama had lost 11 in a row and had a few temper tantrums, they would not only have his obituary written, but his epitaph as well.

I suspect they will throw hard balls at Obama in tonight's debate while coddling Clinton and not calling her out on anything.

Let me state my bias and get that out of the way. I support Hillary. It has seemed to me for some time that the media in general are not reporting the Obama Clinton race fairly but you know how it is, the ref always makes bad calls on your team so generally I have just shrugged it off. However, the whole Obama plagarism deal made it obvious that there is indeed a HUGE double standard here. MSNBC had a panel discussion about whether this was significanto or not and NOONE, not one time, did anyone mention that this same issue was what forced Joe Biden to withdraw from an earlier Presidential run. Not to say Obama should withdraw but how can you talk about this and not even mention the only other time it has been an issue in presidential politics?

I don't see any way Richardson can endorse Obama. Either he stays neutral or he endorses Clinton. Why? He owes them too much, and they are calling in their chips. The question is, if his endorsement could have helped Hillary, why didn't he do it sooner? My feeling is that he is a hedger, and endorsing Hillary earlier would have put him out of contention for a job with an Obama administration.
But now the pressure (I hate to say threats) from Bill may be too much. It could be too little and too late now. But at the very least, if he endorses Hillary, he can justifiably feel that he had repaid his debts, and that's a definite maybe.

This is the boldest and most accurate piece I have read in a long time. Anyone who thinks the media has been fair to Hillary is either incredibly stupid or needs a seeing eye dog. The fact that Chris Matthews is still on air validates this point.

It's finally over for the Clinton Dynasty. Voters aren't as stupid as the Clinton machine had hoped. When Hillary yells about more transparency in government, but simultaneously refused to let you see her income tax returns after she lends a measley $5 Million of her new found fortune (like the impossible convenient but massive payoff she got mysteriously from her one and only foray into the 'futures trading' gambling pit (but refused to explain to anyone's satisfaction...), and when she and Bill refuse to let you see the SECRET WHITE HOUSE PAPERS that the Clintons totally control but blame the National Archives for not releasing (RIGHT!)..., well, Come ON, after WhiteWater-Gate, JenniferFlowers-Gate, Monica-Gate, Foster-Gate, Impeachment-Gate, Disbarment-Gate, lying-Gate, etc., etc., Americans finally have a clue. Yes, it would be nice to have our first woman president, and we soon will -- BUT NOT THIS ONE who is just Bill Clinton in disguise trying to get that elusive 3rd Term in the family Dynasty!! Enough already. Stop dividing the party, say uncle, and create a bit of dignity for the first time in the Clinton Dynasty by resigning now.

And we must quit pretending: there aren't 35 YEARS of experience here. Being First Lady in the White House and in Little Rock, attending parties and socials for visiting delegations, posing for photo opps, etc, -- outside from the disastrous failure of Hillary-Care, there simply is NO appreciable experience, and the Clintons desperately want to prevent you from seeing what the real Clinton 'experiences' in the White house really were -- as they continue to order the National Archives to absolutely NOT release their SECRET White House PAPERS until after the election, when it will be far too late.... Enough already.

I'm astounded the Clinton's didn't make this case earlier. The MSM are such sheep, they'll all react like Dan Balz and start favoring Clinton over Obama in their coverage. From this Obama supporter's vantage point, I am astounded at how weak the MSM have been going after obvious weaknesses in Clinton's record - can we have some more analysis of her 35 years of experience please? Why hasn't the press given her hell over her refusal to open up her tax records? Whenever she held a press conference to denounce Obama's fliers, the press jumps all over it without highlighting the dishonesties of the Clinton fliers = and describes her "obvious anger", assuming it's genuine.

Please don't be a sheep yourself Mr. Sargent.

Somehow "me the victim" is not a particularly good sales line to persuade additional voters. It resembles whining way too much.

Maybe's she's just not that effective of a candidate. You can argue that she had no challenging electoral opponent in her two Senate runs, and won with margins that were not that special for New York.

Maybe that once a lot5 of the electorate got past the endorsements, the perceived desirability of picking up from where we left off with her husband, and the theorized inevitability, there really was not that much "there" there.

The overwhelming majority of voters who cast votes in the last eleven Democratic contests want Hillary to lose. The Media just reported what the voters proclaimed loudly and clearly. The Media had noting to do with Senator Clinton getting trounced in eleven consecutive contests. What did she expect the Media to do, declare those eleven consecutive disasters as wonderful news for her!

Dang. Love those HRC supporters--they are having a collective epiphany moment on the neutrality of the mainstream media.
As an independent (that finds both of the remaining dem candidates frauds) I must admit that had I not known otherwise, I would have thought Hillary was pro-life, a fundamentalist Christian or lived in Idaho. (But HRC, take it as a lesson-learned for 3-decades of political shenanigans.)
The fact that the lunatic on MSNBC, keith whatever-his-name-on-ESPN-was, is infatuated with Obama is no testament to this clean-looking young man from Illinois' qualifications to be president of the United States. In fact, if an independently minded individual assessed Obama's campaign it would look like an expensive run for class president.

Nonetheless, this race is OVER for the white woman. The glass ceiling will remain in place for at least another 8 years. However, she did break some ground in that she was the first chick with a legitimate chance to be a presidential nominee of a major party.

Take solace HRC supporters: All is well. McCain will win an electoral landslide against the hush puppy-wearing, cigarette-smoking, deep voiced, class president-like media favorite with an embittered, racist wife and their daytime soap opera windbag friend in November.

Speier Over & Out

the claim that the media has been incredibly unfair to hillary should be clear to any observer. You must admit it is amazing that the two candidates the media is getting just what it wants-the two candidates they prefer (mccain and obama) are winning. Just as the media preferred bush over kerrey and certainly bush over gore. I voted for obama but the manipulation by our media is real and underreported(except here of course). Obama has been lucky(and good). The media hates Clinton so much it has rolled out the red carpet for Obama and gave him a downhill slide to the nomination. Unfortunately if the media turns on Obama(which i suspect), we may wind up with mcbush.

If Obama is so much about bringing change to Washington, why are so many of his advisor's former senior officials in President Clinton's administration.

There was an article in Newsweek(9/12/07)that detailed the makeup of his campaign advisers. Here is a sample:

1) Richard Clarke - Counter-terrorism Czar from the Clinton and Bush Administration

2) Jeffrey Bader - Former Director for Asian Affairs on Clinton's National Security Council and an assistant U.S. Trade Representative

3) Rob Malley - former Mideast envoy

4) Dennis Ross - former Mideast envoy

5) Bruce Riedel - former C.I.A. official and National Security Council expert on South Asia
This is just to name a few. Obama's advisor's also include Mona Sutphen, Roger Cressey, Mark Brzezinski, Sarah Sewell and Philip Gordon.

All of these people were junior or mid-level Clinton officials.

I don't have a problem with any of these people working for Obama. I only have a problem with Obama talking about changing the way politics are done in Washington.

How can you can change the game when you are using the same players? - unfilteredopinion.com

As an independent voter, I will support real change. If Obama is going to give this country REAL change then I will support him. However, it will take real courage to enact real change.

Maybe we can draw some conclusions....at least I have.

Republicans are failed democrats. People who cannot control their fears, cannot rein in their prejudices, cannot contain their greed. People who become seduced by materialism and who lash out blindly when challenged about their lapse into selfishness and shortsightedness.

It seems the Clinton supporters are the failing democrats, the backsliders, there they are!Over There! There on that slippery slope.

They resort to bushtactics, and their reasoning and rantings on threads such as this one, are eerily like the rightwing reasoning we read on the right these last years. I truly am saying this with regret. I wish all left-leaners and a whole lot of the rightwing would redeem themselves and regain their idealism and desire to rectify our failed human policy. I truly wish we did not have this bitter time in our politics and that all freethinkers could agree on a large platform and that we could have swept thru this season with a lot more....grace, aplomb. I did not want to see from the Clinton fans what I have seen. It is disheartening. We are the poorer for it, they are the poorer for it. And of course I don't mean anyone who voted for HRC, but the vocal blogging element of the HRC camp has been as disappointing as HRC's evolution and record.

When all the noise has died down, who is going to clean up the carnage and mess of Hillary's Circus Train wreck?