« Obama To Pick Up Endorsement Of Super-Del Bruce Braley Today | Home | Al Franken Pays $70,000 In Back Taxes »
Clinton Get NC Front Page Coverage About Concern For Military -- Obama Gets Wright
This has to be exactly the sort of front-page media coverage Hillary wants in North Carolina -- take a look at the front page this morning from the Fayetteville Observer:
Clinton is calling for a Congressional investigation of poor living conditions at the Fort Bragg Army base in North Carolina, a move that could boost her support among working-class voters and military families in the key primary next week. Meanwhile, the sub-heading is about Obama denouncing his pastor.
Clinton told the Observer: "We've asked these young soldiers to risk their lives and bear brutal living conditions ... and when they return home, the least we can do is offer them decent, clean living conditions."
Advertisement
Wow Eric, thank you for highlighting this one newspaper cover out of the hundreds in the country and the many throughout NC/IN.
Will you be featuring every cover that is positive to Obama too and highlighting it as "objective news" or just the ones that help Clinton?
April 30, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think this one is a little more important b/c of its proximity to Fort Bragg. Still, given that it's Eric posting it, I'm sure he has his own pro-Hillary motives for doing so.
April 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is no surprise the Hillary bit gets top billing since the trashed barrcks that prompted the whole issue are at Fort Bragg right outside Fayetteville. It is a local story. Any newspaper would put that story at the top.
April 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well the media - all of it - is not our friend.
It's not Obama's friend.
We're going to have to fight the right, the Republicans and the media.
But if we can cut down on the forces masses against Obama by eliminating the ones attacking from his own party, we will have more to fight the media with.
But in a fascist state, the media and the government are the same thing. Haven't we seen this over and over? They are not going to help.
April 30, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I couldn't have said it better myself! Obama (and by extension, we) are taking on a faction of our own party, the Republicans, corporate America, the government (which is currently being run by insane, evil human beings), ignorance, bigotry, racism, and the press (have I left out anything - I probably have).
What would Benjamin Franklin think of his beloved press now? He must be rolling over in his grave, truly.
April 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
My dearest Carol - I've been waiting for zombie Thomas Jefferson to rise out of his grave and go on a rampage in DC since January 2000.
All the founders have been spinning in their graves for a decade now.
April 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've asked these young soldiers to risk their lives
Asked?
Hillary for Asker in Chief.
April 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Tena,
I don't know how this got attached to your comment.
April 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton Appoints Fort Bragg Conditions Improvement Czar
April 30, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need a Commander In Chief of Military Housing Facilities.
Wait...
April 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! Go HRC! Hillary makes poor living conditions at the Fort Bragg Army base look like light-in-the-loafers, pansy gay fairies!
April 30, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it simply too much to ask our highly paid Congress folk who are on the Armed Services Committees to take a small bit of our tax dollars and actually GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE ON THEIR OWN? Is this what we've descended to? Our oversight folks depending on youtube and a soldier's video in order to pinpoint problems? Any of these elected idiots ever heard of surprise inspections? Are they incapable to planning a surprise?
April 30, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great if Senator Clinton -- in her support of the military -- could manage to attend a few funerals of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the state she is supposed to serve.
I guess she is busy with other things. It would be nice if she dropped by ForetDrum -- but I guess the soldiers there have already voted.
April 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid so.
April 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama denouncing Wright is far more positive news for Obama than another election-time promise. Don't voters consider character first when deciding?
Obama's TV ad for the military, where existing not future accomplishments are mentioned, will be seen by more people than the Observer's front page, so he's covered there.
I swear, even The People's Reporters (like Eric) are more swayed by horses than by what real people want.
April 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama gave a major address in Fayetteville a couple of weeks ago. It was one of his first stops in NC, so it's not like he hasn't gotten press there before now. She's basically trying to make up ground. I don't think this is as big of a deal as it would be if he hadn't already made major inroads there.
The military in NC is solidly behind Obama. The Wright story is bigger news because it's newer news, that's all.
April 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
i am so loving it.....
Obama is either going to win north carolina by single digits or Clinton is going to win north carolina by single digits..........
GO HILLARY, kick some ass:)
April 30, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Either result you claim will not change the fact that the race is OVER. Hillary has LOST. Her only hope is to destroy the party by asking the Superdelegates to hand her the nomination.
April 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the treatment of soldiers and veterans has long been one of Obama's central military issues. Here's another Hillary co-opt -- just as she did with McCain and the gas tax holiday, right? Though Obama's idea is a good one.
And on a side note, good to have you back Tena. Glad you didn't abandon us for good.
April 30, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad for you, Eric, that Obama already has done this by sponsoring S. 713, Dignity For Wounded Warriors Act of 2007.
S.713 [110th]
Title:Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act of 2007
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [D-IL] (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors: 34
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Related Bills: H.R.1268
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. SUMMARY AS OF:
2/28/2007--Introduced.
Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act of 2007 - Requires each recovering servicemember who is assigned to a military barracks or dormitory to be assigned to one that is maintained at the highest service standard in effect for enlisted members of the Armed Forces. Requires at least semiannual inspections of, and appropriate repairs to, any such quarters, as well as alternate housing during periods of unremedied housing deficiencies.
Outlines requirements to be implemented for recovering servicemembers and their families, including: (1) physical disability evaluation system changes; (2) supervising officer and caseworker support; (3) increased training for caseworkers and social workers on particular servicemember conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (4) increased support services, including an Ombudsman for Recovering Servicemembers; (5) a prohibition on discrimination in employment of family members caring for such servicemembers; and (6) meal benefits for recovering servicemembers and family members caring for such servicemembers.
Establishes the Oversight Board for the Wounded.
Clinton didn't co-sponsor this bill. Other 34 Senate Members did.
April 30, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and she didn't write any legislation about ensuring high quality standards for military barracks for servicemembers.
April 30, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Fluffer for that Obama foresight. Of course, Eric is spinning it here that only she cares about them when she was the reason these soldiers are getting wounded out in Iraq.
April 30, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Eric is just correctly pointing out that the media is currently wittingly or unwittingly working full-on overdrive against Obama.
April 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton addressed the problems of walter Reed with the Heroes at Home Act that was directly intended to improve conditions for recovering soldiers BEFORE the Walter Reed scandal even became public.
The bill you discuss, Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, was co-sponsored by Senator Clinton and she recommended and passed a number of amendments from her Heroes at Home act that helped to improve the bill as noted by Senator Levin below:
The Senate Armed Services Committee today approved a series of amendments offered by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to strengthen the committee’s bill to address problems facing our wounded servicemembers. The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act was approved today by the Senate Armed Services Committee and will now go to the Senate floor for consideration by the full Senate. A cosponsor of the legislation, Senator Clinton had succeeded in including a number of provisions in the bill from her Heroes at Home Act of 2007, Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act and Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act, among others. Read More >
Noting Senator Clinton’s leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.
“We have gone a long way today toward meeting our responsibility to our servicemembers to provide the healthcare and support they need. I am proud that the Senate Armed Services committee has approved measures I put forward to improve screening for Traumatic Brain Injury, the signature wound of the war in Iraq; address problems servicemembers are facing as they transition between DoD and VA healthcare systems; and cut red tape preventing wounded servicemembers from receiving needed disability benefits. These are urgently needed steps for our servicemembers and their families,” said Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton today secured approval of an amendment to give the Department of Defense a 180 day deadline for implementing a screening protocol for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). This builds on a measure Senator Clinton secured in the bill, first introduced as part of her Heroes at Home Act of 2007, to improve detection of mild and moderate TBI by developing an objective assessment tool to measure cognitive functioning of solders both prior to and after deployment. The bill approved today by the Committee also includes elements of another Heroes at Home Act of 2007 proposal to provide needed advice and training for families struggling to take care of a loved one with brain injuries and psychological injuries.
In addition, Senator Clinton today won approval of an amendment to ensure that active duty and veterans healthcare services are available to all current and former members of the Armed Services who were injured after October 7, 2001, not just those injured after implementation of the bill. Senator Clinton also cosponsored an amendment approved today to make sure that active duty and veterans health care services includes VA benefits so that active duty servicemembers receiving care at VA facilities are not denied access to VA benefits that can facilitate their rehabilitation and recovery. Senator Clinton first called for providing a two-year “overlap” of active duty and medically retired health care services and benefits for injured members and former members of the Armed Services as part of her Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act following reports that soldiers were experiencing problems receiving the healthcare they need as they transition from Department of Defense to VA care.
The Senate Armed Services Committee also approved an amendment today offered by Senator Clinton to make sure that efforts underway by the DoD and VA to create a joint electronic medical record result in a DoD-VA medical record that is compatible and synchronized with the national efforts to develop a nationwide coordinated health IT infrastructure, an issue on which Senator Clinton has been a leader. This measure builds on provisions, which would provide oversight and leadership for a joint DoD-VA interagency office, that Senator Clinton secured in the bill from her Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act. The SASC bill approved today also includes a measure from Senator Clinton’s Bridging the Gap for Wounded Warriors Act that would reform the current flawed disability rating system for wounded servicemembers by ending the flawed DoD rating system and having military departments adopt the VA disability rating system.
Senator Clinton today also secured approval of an amendment to ensure needed oversight of the disability rating system for wounded servicemembers by continuing Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews of treatment of wounded servicemembers. The amendment also will ensure that disability benefit determination cases under review are prohibited from being reduced by a new determination. Senator Clinton proposed similar measures as part of her Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act. The SASC bill approved today also includes two other measures from her Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act: a measure to help make sure servicemembers receive disability benefits they need and deserve by requiring an independent review of disability benefit ratings below 20 percent and increasing disability benefits as warranted and a provision to require that the shortage of Physical Evaluation Board liaison officers and attorneys be addressed by the DoD and VA.
Finally, the Senate Armed Services Committee today approved an amendment offered by Senators Clinton and Collins, co-chairs of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease, to require that any longitudinal studies on members of the Armed Forces with TBI also identify early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegeneration. Head injuries, after age and family history, are one of the leading risk factors for an individual developing Alzheimer’s disease. This amendment builds on a provision for a 15 year longitudinal study on long-term health and mental health consequences of TBI that Senator Clinton got enacted in the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act.
The final bill also includes a proposal from the TBI Access to Options Act, introduced by Senator Clinton along with Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) to provide medical advocates for traumatic brain injured servicemembers in the transition from DOD to VA medical treatment, preventing them from getting caught in bureaucracy and red tape.
As New York's first Senator to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton has made it one of her top priorities to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have the healthcare and support they need. She has introduced legislation to improve the detection, assessment and treatment of traumatic brain injury and expand support systems for members and former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families. Senator Clinton has also introduced legislation to help ensure wounded soldiers receive the disability benefits they need and deserve and to further protect military family financial benefits. She has pressed for an independent investigation of the conditions at Walter Reed and called for a new GI Bill of Rights to once again honor the service and invest in the future of our men and women in uniform. She authored legislation signed into law last year that required an audit of widespread pay issues wounded soldiers are facing and was recently released by the Army showing continuing problems. Senator Clinton has fought to ensure servicemembers have the body armor they need. She has also secured in law access to TRICARE military health benefits for all drilling members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families.
April 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, no, she didn't co-sponsor the bill. Here's the link below.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00713:@@@P
April 30, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1606/show
Your information is WRONG, OUTDATED and Hillary was an original co-sposor of the bill. Please find more reliable sources. In addition, Hillary had her own bill in 2006 before Walter Reed and much of those reccomendations became a part of this bill.
Sponsored by
Senator Carl Levin (D) (MI)
and 46 Cosponsors
Daniel Akaka (D) (HI)
Evan Bayh (D) (IN)
Sherrod Brown (D) (OH)
Robert Byrd (D) (WV)
Saxby Chambliss (R) (GA)
Hillary Clinton (D) (NY)
Susan Collins (R) (ME)
John Cornyn (R) (TX)
Elizabeth Dole (R) (NC)
Dick Durbin (D) (IL)
Lindsey Graham (R) (SC)
Ted Kennedy (D) (MA)
Joe Lieberman (I) (CT)
Mel Martinez (R) (FL)
John McCain (R) (AZ)
Claire McCaskill (D) (MO)
Patty Murray (D) (WA)
Bill Nelson (D) (FL)
Ben Nelson (D) (NE)
Barack Obama (D) (IL)
Mark Pryor (D) (AR)
Jack Reed (D) (RI)
Jay Rockefeller (D) (WV)
Bernie Sanders (I) (VT)
Jeff Sessions (R) (AL)
Debbie Stabenow (D) (MI)
Jon Tester (D) (MT)
John Thune (R) (SD)
John Warner (R) (VA)
Jim Webb (D) (VA)
Joseph Biden (D) (DE)
Jeff Bingaman (D) (NM)
Kit Bond (R) (MO)
Chris Dodd (D) (CT)
Chuck Hagel (R) (NE)
Tom Harkin (D) (IA)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) (TX)
Johnny Isakson (R) (GA)
Amy Klobuchar (D) (MN)
Mary Landrieu (D) (LA)
Trent Lott (R) (MS- Retired)
Barbara Mikulski (D) (MD)
Ken Salazar (D) (CO)
Chuck Schumer (D) (NY)
Arlen Specter (R) (PA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) (RI)
April 30, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, more reliable sources than the Library of Congress?
The Levin bill, by the way, is from June 2007. Which by my calculation is slightly after February 2007. If you want to compare ideas that were a part of an earlier unsuccessful iniative but got incorporated into a more recent bill, I think Obama has the upper hand on that too. But you might have to read the "unreliable" site for that information.
April 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton didn't co-sponsor this bill. Other 34 Senate Members did. "
The implication was that Senator Clinton had not acted to assist wounded warriors when in reality she signed on to another bill with MORE protections than the won Obama and McCaskill sponsored. The act that got passed was sponsored by senator levin and Hillary was an original co-sponsor. To imply because Hillary didn't sign on to Obama's plan she was sitting their twiddling her thumbs is wrong. The Levin bill got passed and Levin himself credited Hillary for her significant input from HRCs amendments.
Obama sponsored a bill for warriors in 2007 that did not get passed. Hillary sponsored one in 2006 that did not get passed (before it became a media frenzy).
April 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mm. Perhaps Clinton ought have supported the bill to get it passed earlier?
April 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama support her Heroes at home bill that was proactive in 2006(before the scandal) vs reactive (after Walter Reed hit in Febrary 2007)? NOPE - guess supporting returning soldiers wasn't important to him until after the story hit the Washington Post - then it's time to supplement his legislative record by sponsoring a bill that was merely a rush attempt to rush make headlines. I can't believe a lot fo investigative work went into his bill. Levin's bill was more though out and thorough in it's approach. Hillary had input on the bill from her previous work. Hillary did the right thing in supporting a true approach to a solution rather than just who can be the first to write a bill that will go nowhere.
April 30, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary always has solutions for problems she creates. She sent these troops to Walter Reed to begin with. It's her mess and now she's just patching it up with "solutions." Her solutions will not bring back the dead, the lost limbs nor cure the disfigurement, physical and psychological.
Hillary failed these troops when it mattered. She should have thought about them instead of triangulating when she cast her vote for the war. Her subsequent patchwork impresses no one.
April 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's what I was looking for, thanks.
April 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is my third election online and I think the blogs and the alternative media are doing a crappy job with this election. All we are getting is MSM leftovers and anonymous tips and it's always after the MSM has already published the story or it's meaningless cause the nomination battle is really over and the blogs ought to be all over that because that isn't truthiness - it's true.
It's very disappointing to me that truthiness has won out over reality.
April 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's hard to break through. Now imagine that you're a progressive candidate trying to run a local or state-wide race in NC! (or IN, though I don't live there so I don't know what it's like on the ground there.) We're going to lose some key races in NC because we just haven't had the resources to compete with the noise that this primary season has brought along. And the only posts that get read on the big blogs are presidential primary posts. So, you know, that's that.
And the truth is, no one is even covering the ground campaign any more. I mean, the press isn't really even writing about Obama's events in NC. Just 24/7 Wright. Bill Clinton is getting better write-ups for his events than Obama is for his.
But it does not phase me. I will not sweat it. Because Obama is getting 1000s of people, none of whom give one good god damn america about Reverend Wright, all over North Carolina. He saw over 20000 North Carolinians on Monday alone, between his Wilmington town hall and the Chapel Hill rally.
Even adjusting downward from current polling, early voting in NC is breaking strongly in Obama's favor - double digit strongly.
No Drama Obama will deliver North Carolina. And that will be the only story that matters here next Tuesday.
April 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed. It's actually kind of embarrassing. People who used to do original and really good reporting now spend most of their days writing not-so-veiled bigoted posts towards Obama. The only good thing that has come out of it, is that some of these preening princesses of the blogosphere (Armstrong, Stoller, et al) are being shown as the self-righteous hacks they've always been.
April 30, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Hillary's new strategist once called for "violent revolution", according to HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/geoff-garin-clinton-chief_n_99336.html)
"On this anniversary we must recognize that the patriots of Boston acted wisely in overthrowing their oppressors and the time is come to express our confidence in what our forefathers did by doing it ourselves."
Somehow I picture this story being buried in the hole with the article about Hillary's Commie law firm. It's as un-newsworthy as Ayers yet which one gets put into national focus?
April 30, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, link was here rather:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/geoff-garin-clinton-chief_n_99336.html
April 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no danger of Sargent or Kleefeld covering that because the Clinton's campaign won't talk about it on the conference call and neither of them would actually be so gauche as to bring it up on their own like some kind of "reporter". I mean, come on, no one here actually believes that Eric just stumbled on this cover. Nope. We know that the Clinton's campaign spoonfed him this and like a good little stenographer he regurgitated it back to us. Our job is to pretend that 1)it's interesting, 2) it's important and 3) it's original. The reality is that it's 4) none of the above.
April 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's interesting that the last 3 posts that herald good news for Senator Obama currently have around 110 comments combined, while a recent post highlighting Senator Clinton is about to top 200 comments.
Greg's Sunday morning Fox post got over 600 comments.
I'm not making any accusations here, I just find it fascinating that the political landscape of this primary combined with internet communication makes it much better business for TPMEC to post bad news for Senator Obama or good news for Senator Clinton. I don't really think they do this.
Any news about McCain right now is a dud.
April 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the blogs were supposed to lead, not follow. If the media is going to be held to standards, noone else is going to be able to do it but the alternative media - and it's not happening this time.
We could be leading some of these news outbreaks - but no, we're just rehashing what has already been said.
April 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we may be seeing the end of certain blogs as "Alternative Media."
When a scrappy young voice is starved for audiences, they need to provide startling alternatives to established outlets to prove their worth. So they dig for fresh and attention getting stories. Frequency of content is less relevant because there are no expectations to live up to.
Once established as a regular source for relevant content, a business based on information feels much more pressure to rapidly provide content.
Make no mistake, a web based outlet makes money the same way a traditional media outlet does: its quantity, not quality, that pays.
That's not to say that I find the quality of news here lacking. I personally find it muc more relevant and valuable than most traditional media outlets. But I recognize that TPM could eventually be subject to the same resource and time constraints that have crippled the MSM.
April 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
O yeah - I recognize the signs and I can tell what's going on.
The alternative becomes the mainstream and it all goes downhill.
Been there, done that. I remember the Berkely Barb, the Stone Canyon Iconoclast, Rolling Stone when it was new.
That was the first wave of alternative media in my lifetime and this is the second and it always ends up the same place - being co-opted by the mainstream and emasculated, for want of a better analogy.
April 30, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love that she is trying to win NC and all of the sudden she cares about investigating military living conditions in NC.
She is so pathetic, could she be any more transparent?
April 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! Clinton couldn't ask for better press if she paid for it . . . Hey! Hmmm . . .
Look for Clinton's campaign to adopt the RNC's Southern Strategy next . . . Let's watch how she tucks her hands into the waist band over the next coupla months . . .
April 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The break with Rev. Wright is, and is being portrayed as, a highly positive event for Sen. Obama. There will be a few more days of fallout but, from BO's perspective, its far better to take the hit now than, perhaps, later.
Two caveats:
1. Obama has revealed his Achilles heal -- he will not tolerate anyone, including his spiritual mentor, calling him a pandering "politician." That was the mortal sin for which Rev. Wright was punished. That accustion is the one thing that actually incites passion and anger in BO. Look for McCain and others to exploit this angle and bait BO with the "politician" appellation.
2. Rev. Wright is simmering. He will respond to BO's repudiation of Rev. Wright's "performance" and "rants." The only question is when the pot will boil over and how the backlash will occur.
The "Wright" story is not yet over, but there is no doubt that BO's firm rennunciation was a positive.
April 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all this Hillary bias (or rather Obama prejudice) from Greg & Eric, Josh wonders (in TPM front page) why the Obama supporters are hand wringing for the past few days.
Just look beyond your cubicle, Josh.
April 30, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday; Hillary Clinton stood beside the Governor of North Carolina as he said the following:
From CBS News’ Fernando Suarez:
"RALEIGH, N.C. – “This lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy,” said Governor Mike Easley, D-N.C., today, referring to Hillary Clinton."
Isn't "pansy" a demeaning way of refering to a gay man.
Why has the Media not asked Hillary to denounce and reject what her supporter, Governor Mike Easley said yesterday, while Hillary was standing by his side?
Also, what do genuine feminists think about the way Hillary likes being described as being more of a man than a violence prone punch drunk boxer character!
April 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and you hear the heavy silence from the unhinged nutjobs who said that Obama's use of "periodically" was sexist. I can't wait for the moment when they'll call out the NC Gov. on his homophobic remarks? Oh...wait...these are people who said that the race-baiting tactics of the Clinton's was all Obama's fault, no wait, they said I was imagining it. Uh...actually, they also told me I was being too sensitive.
April 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and I swear to god if Hillary hadn't been standing there, the story of what he said would be all over the internet and the media.
*sigh*
April 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olbermann tried to make an issue of the "pansey" reference yesterday. His guest told him it was a non-issue. KO dropped it like a hot potato.
April 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the gay blogs - including the pro-Hillary Queerty.
Trust me. It is SO not a non-issue in our community
April 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I never knew the word had that connotation. Not a word I've ever thought about at length. Always just assumed it meant "wimp" or "weakling."
April 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? I find it insulting. And I voted for him. North Carolina has an active and politically engaged gay community. We're the only southern state that managed to hold off a "defense of marriage" legal abomination. We've worked hard to raise the profile of our state on equality issues. Why shouldn't we hold Easley accountable for his comment?
April 30, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even yesterday, the gay and lesbian we sat near yesterday and all of our friends are pissed right now. Especially since so many lesbians are backing the Clinton's. But yesterday, the gay men in the area were talking politics and that's highly unusual and they were pissed.
April 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he did - and his idiotic guest dismissed it and went right back to the Wright brouhaha. Ugh...
April 30, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize not advocating nuclear warfare made you a pansy these days.
April 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday; Hillary Clinton stood beside the Governor of North Carolina as he said the following:
From CBS News’ Fernando Suarez:
"RALEIGH, N.C. – “This lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy,” said Governor Mike Easley, D-N.C., today, referring to Hillary Clinton."
Isn't "pansy" a demeaning way of refering to a gay man.
Why has the Media not asked Hillary to denounce and reject what her supporter, Governor Mike Easley said yesterday, while Hillary was standing by his side?
Also, what do genuine feminists think about the way Hillary likes being described as being more of a man than a violence prone punch drunk boxing character!
April 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liam,
What is your profession?
While I'm not down with the way you post the same thing all over the place, I think you consistently demonstrate an exceptional ability to pick apart a message and come up with a powerful counter-message.
You'd be scary-good at Public Relations.
Please swear you'll only use your powers for good.
April 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
Since you find my messages effective, why would you want me to run them just once on one channel?. Repetition is very important in order to reach as many people as possible. Even candidates for city council put out the same sign in many different yards. Even Rocky Balboa did not expect to win just by throwing an effective punch just one time.(That is just a little satirical jab at the glass jawed pugilist from Tuzla.)
I am an old retired blue collar white guy with less than a high school education.
April 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
While pansy has multiple connotations, I believe the one listed below is most apt. Someone who is a coward. I know plenty of gay people that do not fit the definition of pansy and plenty of straight men that do.
2. pansy - a timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive
milksop, Milquetoast, pantywaist, sissy
coward - a person who shows fear or timidity
Please allow me to use it in a sentence: Barack Obama is a PANSY because he argued that the questions at the ABC debate were not focused on issues for the first 45 minutes and he wants to focus on actual issues that matter to real Americans, but then hides from Senator Clinton's challenge to a debate entirely focused on economic issues that is unmoderated by the media in a townhall, focused format where the questions are about policies vs. diversions.
When I say Barack's a PANSY, I don't mean gay. I mean a weak, lily livered unassertive scaredy cat that hides from addressing real issues head on.
April 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...holy double backflip Batman...aren't you the same one who professed total ignorance to race-baiting tactics of the Clinton's? Now look at you...You're a linguistic champion and even have an example of one whole gay man.
As a black person, you should know better than to trot out that one gay man as an example of all gay people. By your logic, It's totally okay to lump your actions with Whitney Houston and Flava Flava based on one trait.
April 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment is nonsense. As I indicated previously, there are plenty of straight men that are pansies and plenty of gay men that are not. Your ability to be a fighter and stand up for what you believe and confront issues head on is not determined by your sexual orientation. It is determined by your character and fortitude (or lack thereof). Don't be mad at me because your candidate is a PANSY as in coward.
April 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And with a massive circulation of 61,194 it is sure to sway this election in favor of Hillary.
April 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to put that headline in some perspective, Fayetteville is a fairly small city in NC (I live in Charlotte) and the main "industry" in that town is the military (Fort Bragg). So the paper there does tend to highlight anything military related. It's not at all surprising that they'd splash the military related Clinton talking point above the less-locally-related Wright story.
That was not the focus of any of the other larger papers in the state. The Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer are the big papers in the state and their headlines are related to Obama's speech about Wright with no mention of Clinton.
April 30, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer are the big papers in the state and their headlines are related to Obama's speech about Wright with no mention of Clinton."
Thats what I like to hear..
April 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I told you months ago......time is running out
get to Obama before it's too late.....take the offer
Clinton/Obama 08...........before it's too late. Your race is about over....your troubles can only be solved by the Clinton's. Come into the light.
April 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Priceless! Obama may finally be forced to face his direct or associated hate and racism--being outted by his own pastor, friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor of 20 years as a liar for political purposes--a common political hack--is surely painfully eye opening for Obama. Then again, he didn't do much eye contact yesterday in his press conference while talking. The Dear Leader's apologists here may offer derogatory insults but Obama is finally exposed for what he is.
Matthew
April 30, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is "associated hate and racism"? Hate by proxy. "I hate you but only because Marcia hates Frank!" Yeah. That's got a nasty bite to it.
WTF are you talking about, Mr. Weaver?!
April 30, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, an empty suit + close association with a fruitcake = not good news.
But man, if people in NC really knew what an empty suit Obama is, he'd really be in trouble.
April 30, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young Mr. Hillary. "More of a man than Rocky Balboa"
Young Mr. Hillary. "More of a man than Rocky Balboa"
April 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young Mr. Hillary. "More of a man than Rocky Balboa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM
April 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why people on blogs assume that people see newspaper headlines the way they would parse them. Many people don't take the time to even read more than 2 paragraphs under a heading. "Hillary sticking up for troops; Obama still having trouble with his preacher". Be happy that it's a small circulation, but I wouldn't assume it's irrelevant. The military's a chatty bunch with a fair amount of sway down there. But sure, I'll roll: "It's EXCELLENT!!! For OBAMA!!!" What ever happened to Idiotic anyway, not that I would say I exactly missed him. Anyway, a week to go.
April 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Had Obama done the right thing and distanced himself from Reverend Wright when he became aware of divisive political speech during his 20 yeaars as a member of his ministry, I could have still respected him. Had he severed ties with Reverend Wright when he became aware of the G-D Damn Amnerica speech and US creating AIDS to kill black people (admittedly before they started playing endlessly on cable), I could have still respected him. Had Obama supporters rejected Reverend Wright's initial comments rather than trying to argue that criticism of Rev. Wright's commenst was an attack on black churches in general, I may have respected their point of view.
But for the last straw that causes Obama to firmly renounce Reverend Wright to be the substance of what Reverend Wright said, but how his failure to keep silent or take into account how it impacts Obama politically is just appalling. I have no respect left for Senator Obama period.
April 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because the stuff that some people said that he knows is way more important than the stuff said by some people that Hillary knows and both are obviously way more important than how each would govern. Oh, and if more stuff comes out that people they know said, obviously McCain (aka Bush III) is the way to go.
April 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you cite an example of something said by one of Hillary's close supporters that is anywhere near as divisive as Reverend Wright's G-D Damn America comments? No. Thanks for playing.
Second, I strongly believe Hillary is the best candidate based on policy issues but at the beginning of this campaign I had tremendous respect for him. That respect has been diminished not by Hillary, but by his own failure to adequately address the Wright isssue, his lack of progressive ideas in the economic arena, his willingness to find the safe "middle ground" rather than take a firm stand on principle. That's what got him into this whole Wright mess in the first place. If he really believed the comments themsleves were so reprehensible, he should have disassociated himself from Wright THEN. But he didn't want to offend the parts of the black community that were supporting Rev Wright, so he denounced the comments but portrayed the Criticism of Rev Wright as an attack on the black church in general. RIDICULOUS.
In trying to pander to everyone, the controversy continued and now when he finally makes the decision to sever ties, it's only because Rev Wright has continued to inflict political damage by not being quiet. That type of playing the politics game does not say principles, do the right thing not the expedient thing to me. That image of "new politics" is why I respected him so much and it has been irreversibly tarnsihed by his own actions and that of his campaign and supporters.
April 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, crap. I had Googled a whole bunch of stuff, including Bob Johnson's idiocy, Geraldine Ferraro, Mike Easley and, among the lesser knowns, Adelfa Callejo providing links to each but my comment disappeared.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter what Wright says/said. He's not running. Obama is. This guilt by association, gotcha! crap is Republican tactics at their worst. It means nothing and for a supposed progressive to not only buy into it but use it against a fellow progressive is just pathetic.
April 30, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro, "If Obama was a white man"
was clearly a racist statement. Thank you for playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPeG-WtXt4
April 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Geraldine Ferraro's comment was that if he wasn't a black man he wouldn't be where he is now. Obama has 92% of black votes (strong presence in the democratic party) and him and senator clinton are splitting the white vote. has there ever been a democratic primary where one candidate got that high %age of black votes? NO. Because it is not that 92% of blacks vote for obama based on policy etc. It's that some of those folks are voting for him simply based on the fact that he's black. As an african american senator clintn supporter, I have had people stop me (seeing my Hillary button) and say how can I not support a black man for president. I happily tell them I think hillary's economic, healthcare, foreclosure plan etc is much better than Obamas , but some people still consider me a "traitor". That is what Geraldine Ferraro and Bob Johnson were talking about in Obama's advantage in this campaign.
And if criticizing Obama for past drug use is playing the "race" card, is that what they did when Bill Clinton's marijuana use was brought up to? Every criticism of Obama is not steeped in race. Even though I think the drug reference is irrelevant, how can you argue it is a race based attack?
April 30, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has said that the drug comments were race related. What are you talking about?
And you're still rationalizing why the comments of Wright are so important, but the comments of supporters of Clinton, well, not so much.
April 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
Not according to the Obama campaign memo in South Carolina that was intended to play the race card against the Clintons. It also included Bill Clinton's comments that Obama being against the iraq war consistently was a fairytale and Hillary's comments crediting LBJ with his role in the Civil Rights Act and comments from Clinton surrogates regarding Obama's drug use.
And here's my personal favorite - Bill Clinton did an interview about all the strong public figures he's had the privilege of knowing and that in the end he'd pick hillary as the strongest. Accroding to the Obama campaign this is playing the race card and saying Hillary is stronger than Mandela:
Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I
have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the
last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year
and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last
job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life
and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one
other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never
blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would
pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]
You can't even make the argument that Bill Clinton had made a "racial" statement by noting that Jesse Jackson won SC too because it hadn't happened yet. RIDICULOUS MEMO and an attempt to turn every criticism into an attack on race.
April 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They're attacking me because I'm white", said at Fox News. You go on defending that tripe.
April 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe Hillary will keep her campaign promises.
She has been revealed to be a habitual liar. Her campaign policies are meaningless. She is not to be trusted. The only thing superior about Hillary is that she is a Superior Liar.
This is the person that fed America the scare line about "the vast right wing conspiracy" that was out to get her, then she turned around and super glued her lying lips to the Arse of The Puppet Master of the, "vast right wing conspiracy"
She will break your heart.
April 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, his 92% support at this point is based more on the perception that the Clintons have stabbed them in the back than because Obama is "black". If you will remember, early on many African Americans were leery about Obama for a variety of reasons (one of which was that he wasn't "black" enough), and Clinton had a decent level of support. Only after the Clintons and their surrogates showed their true colors did the AA community abandon them in droves. You can continue to willfully ignore this, but it doesn't change the facts or the perception in the AA community that the Clintons have screwed them over and abandoned them. You are being very selective in your statements and a bit disingenuous.
April 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do an awful lot of lying, conflating and compounding several things to get your point across. Not trying to be mean here, but you don't come off as smart or even intelligent, so it's probably some way to make your post sound interesting even if they're devoid of fact. In that vein, I'll make this easy for you.
1. Obama doesn't have 92% of the black vote. That was one poll in one state.
1a. His support from black people only came in Dec. and Jan. once the Clinton's restarted their Southern Strategy.
1b. Until the middle of Dec. Clinton was leading the black vote. I'm sure you had no problem with 83% of people saying in March '07 that they'd vote for Clinton no matter what.
2. You mention that Obama didn't offer a progressive economic plan.
2a. By default your logic is that Clinton's plan is progressive...even though it was rewritten in October and Nov. to mimic Obama's plan.
2. You do not share what a progressive economic plan is to you, so it's just an empty statement.
2c. Neither candidate is progressive. No matter how many times Hillary says she's progressive, she has not one single progressive vote in her past, nor are any of the positions on her website progressive. Just using the word 'progressive' does not make it so.
3. No one mentioned the drug use. That's your personal strawman to the discussion.
3a. It wasn't Steppin Fetchit Johnson's mention of drug use it was the implication of Obama selling crugs. In fact, even the 3 mentions of this during December, most notably with Mark Penn, wasn't that he used drugs (after all our last 2 presidents have been a womanizing pothead and an alcoholic cokehead), but the implication that since he's black that he was most likely selling drugs. Something tells me that you probably hold that view of every brother you see walking down the street so you're okay with it.
As for me, I don't think you're a "traitor". Hell, Condoleeza Rice willingly works for the GOP, and I don't think she's a traitor. I think you're woefully uneducated regarding the two candidates. There's no way that someone can look at these two candidates on paper and say one is better than the other on most issues. Clinton's positions are based so much on Obama's positions Now With More Edwards! since Feb. that it's such a laughable statement.
April 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
First: The memo above is from the Obama campaign before the SC primary trying to stir up race based anger against the Clinton's for benign comments. SC is where Obama began winning 90% of the black democratic vote and by large part that has continued in other states, driven by the intentional playing of the race card.
Second: Bob Johnson never accused Obama of selling drugs. He said he alluded to his drug use in the neighborhood in his youth. Many people did this to Bill as well with his marijuana use. Nothing to do with race. Everything to do with drugs.
Third: I know what progressive economic policies are and am VERY familiar with why Hillary's are superior to Barack's. The majority of my posts are on substance of policy difference between Hill & Obame. Here's a sample of previosu posts:
Obama supports universal access (meaning making health care affordable) but does not require everyone to buy it. He assumes people will buy it if it is affordable. He only supports mandates for children. If adults choose not to buy affordable health insurance, that is their choice.
Hillary supports mandated coverage which means everyone must have coverage. If you work and have not elected coverage through your employer, Hillary supports automatic enrollment. If you are self employed, she has recommended possibly going through the IRS just as we do to recover social security taxes for the self employed. For those who truly cannot afford coverage, it will be provided by the system. She supports a cap on premiums of 5-10% of earnings depending on tax brackets.
Under Barack's plan, if someone does not buy healthcare and is uninsured and then gets sick, at the point of the emergency room he said that he could support fining them and charging them higher rates and then mandating that they get coverage going forward at possibly higher rates. That makes a hell of a lot of sense doesn't it? Punishing someone who is sick and then requiring them to pay a fine. Someone who is uninsured is less likely to get preventative care and more likely to allow an illness to progress where as if they had been required to get healthcare from the beginning, the cost of treatment would be lower.
In addition, people who consider themselves not at risk can choose to not pay into the system until they get sick thereby ensuring that costs stay high because the people electing coverage are more likely to use it. As far as how much the premiums will be - who knows, who cares about specifics? And we haven't even gotten to the questions of opting in and out (on an open enrollment period annually???). Obama's plan - less progressive, more consensus, less solutions, more inherent problems.
Hillary advocates freezing ARM rates, 90 day freeze on foreclosures and the federal gov't intervening to directly buy loans for subprime home owners and renegotiate rates for qualified subprime homeowners. Barack just wants people to file bankruptcy to renegotiate terms of their mortgages and doesn not want direct federal intervention. Again more progressive.
I could really go on all day explaining to you what progressive policies are, source for you how long Hillary has held her positions and challenge you to find one which she retrooled to be closer to Obama's and the reason I can do that is that I'm right. I don't care who's approach you think is best - Hillary's or Obama's - Hillarys is indisputable more progressive. As a progressive liberal, that is what matters to me. I chose my candidate based her policies, I don't change my policies to fit my candidate.
April 30, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
fabooj, I do not beleive anyone ever accused Oilbama of selling "crugs". The fact that he admits he used Cocaine is something I am not sure anyone wants children to emulate.
April 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
promises and more promises, Hillary's own state NY rural farmers still waiting for 200.000 jobs she had promised when she ran as senator for the first time. It was a big story at the time but all she has done so far more money for the Manhattan riches!
April 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a joke. It’s easy to simply say that a white person who does not support Oilbama is a Racist or to call a black person an “Uncle Tom”. Oh, that’s right. you couldn’t exactly say, “Look at all of the work Obama’s done as Chairman of that Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee,” because he hasn’t done a damn thing. You also couldn’t say, “Look at how well he organized those neighborhoods and looked out for minorities in Chicago,” because we should all know by now that he and his pal Rezko sold those folks up the river and let a number of his “constituents” freeze their asses off in the dead of winter due to political expediency. Those were Black asses freezing might I add. You also couldn't say I love the fact that Oilbama voted for Dick Cheney's Big Oil Energy Bill because that is why gas is at 4$ a gallon. Black voters have been shown to be very racist in this campaign and are clearly voting for Oilbama merely because he is black.
April 30, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black Voters support Senator Obama in this campaign for the very same reason that I do, and I am an old blue collar white man. We do not feel that their is a better alternative candidate to support. Senator Obama is far from perfect, but he is far superior to Hillary. That is why I support him. All voters make up their own minds, regardless of race or gender, so all those who keep complaining about which way one group or another group is voting, are merely engaging in the deliberate tactics of divisive slicing and dicing of we the people.
One person, one vote. All polling of voters by race, gender, age, etc should be outlawed. It is a form of virtual apartheid. My skin color has nothing to do with my vote, any more than Maya Angelou's skin color has anything to do with her vote. A vote is a vote.
There are a number of Aryan Nation Trolls(ANTs) who keep pushing the issue of how African Americans vote, in order to try and diminish the value of those votes.
I have news for those racist creeps, and Bill Clinton, the vote of a black person is no longer counted as being just three fifth's of one white person's vote. All votes are equal, no matter how many times you inbred Springer rejects try to claim otherwise!
April 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it's just ONE reason why picking up the governor's endorsement was so GRRRReat! (which many of you dismissed)
LOL
April 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink