JAY LENO: According to TMZ, the day after First Lady Michelle Obama unveiled the new USDA guide to healthy eating, President Obama was spotted in Ohio eating two chili dogs... That's two politicians this week getting in trouble for their wieners.
What a story this is! Yesterday, Congressman Anthony Weiner, now known of course as the 'peter tweeter,' that's who he is now. Well, he held a big press conference at a hotel in New York City where he admitted to everything. Did you see him standing in front of that microphone? I think it was a microphone.
See, this is why Twitter exists. Members of Congress can now send you pictures of their penises electronically. Remember the old days with Sen. Larry Craig? You had to get in your car, drive to the airport, find the airport bathroom, try to figure out which stall he's in, knock on the door. Now they send it right to your house. It's fantastic!
Well, you know this was gonna happen. A second woman has come forward now, and she says she has over 200 explicit sex text messages from the married congressman. She says they're very short messages, you know, like cocktail wieners. They're the smaller...
Anyway, yesterday, Weiner said he wanted to apologize to his constituents, especially the really hot ones. He feels bad about that. But he said there were six girls in three years, but he never had sex with any of them. Six girls, three years, and no sex -- Do you know what I call that? High school. OK? That was high school. That was high school for me.
And his wife, I guess his beautiful wife, Huma, she's a beautiful woman, if you've seen her. She is an aide for Hillary Clinton. And I guess Hillary called Huma to console her, while Anthony Weiner got a call from Bill going, 'Yeah!!!'
Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.
In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”
What a lame e-mail!
Burton is saying that Obama really won Indiana.
That's not how it works. Obama lost because Hillary got more votes.
Did Limbaugh's Operation Chaos play a role in giving Hillary that slim victory in Indiana?
Maybe.
It doesn't matter.
What matters is the Dems are divided. This has been a grueling bloody primary. It's May and Obama has shown that he hasn't been able to knock out Hillary.
There's definitely chaos, but Limbaugh can't take credit for all of it.
Sen. Barack Obama won a convincing victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday in North Carolina and nearly toppled her in Indiana, twin results that could ramp up pressure on the New York senator to reconsider her candidacy for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton claimed a 51 percent to 49 percent victory in Indiana, a margin of just 22,000 votes statewide out of 1.2 million votes cast. The result was badly delayed due to extremely slow counting of votes in Lake County, a northwestern area seen as strong Obama country.
...The North Carolina electorate divided sharply along racial lines. As has been the case in nearly every state to vote so far in the nomination fight, African American voters went overwhelmingly for Obama -- 91 percent for the Illinois senator to just six percent for Clinton, according to exit polling. Clinton carried white voters in the Tarheel State convincingly, taking 60 percent to Obama's 38 percent.
Whites are significantly more likely to vote for Obama than blacks are likely to vote for Hillary.
Regarding the black vote, this Dem primary is playing out like a general election, with Obama being the Dem and Hillary being the Republican.
Blacks are completely abandoning Hillary.
Over 90 percent of blacks vote for Obama even though Hillary and Obama aren't essentially different in terms of the issues.
The difference is skin. It's race.
Although Hillary carries white voters, the margins are nowhere near the overwhelming number of black voters that Obama carries.
It's about race. When given a choice between a comparable white Dem and a black Dem, blacks go with the black candidate.
That's racist.
It's the elephant in the room.
Blacks used to support Hillary. Then Obama came along.
In North Carolina, Mr. Obama’s performance was bolstered by a strong black vote. He captured more than 90 percent of those voters in that state, where blacks accounted for one in three voters.
Exit polls in North Carolina and Indiana show that race is key.
Race again played a pivotal role in Tuesday's Democratic presidential clashes, as whites in Indiana and North Carolina leaned solidly toward Hillary Rodham Clinton and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, exit polls showed. Almost half said they were influenced by the focus on Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama, the Illinois senator battling to become the first black president, again failed to gain ground with a crucial voting bloc that has consistently eluded him — working-class whites. But he pieced together coalitions that besides blacks included the young, first-time primary voters, the very liberal and college graduates, plus sizable minorities of whites.
According to exit polls of voters, about two-thirds of whites in both states who have not completed college were supporting Clinton. The New York senator could use that to fortify her argument that she would be the stronger Democratic candidate in the November general election. Of 28 states that held primaries in which she and Obama competed before Tuesday, Clinton had prevailed with working-class white voters in 25.
...The six in 10 whites in both states supporting Clinton were similar to her margin over Obama among whites nationally so far, showing he continues to have trouble cutting into her support from those voters. Even so, his lopsided backing from blacks meant he didn't need white majorities Tuesday to be competitive.
...Nine in 10 blacks in both states were backing Obama — an even stronger margin than usual for a group he has dominated. That proved decisive in North Carolina, where they comprised about a third of voters — nearly double their proportion in Indiana.
All the talking heads keep stressing that Obama hasn't managed to win the Archie Bunker vote. Those blue-collar, uneducated bigots won't vote for the "exotic" Obama.
Jeremiah Wright had an impact on the way these bigots voted.
Actually, the pundits and columnists sound like bigots to me.
They completely ignore why blacks aren't voting for the white candidate.
In this image taken from video and supplied by CBS, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., delivers the 'Top Ten Reasons Hillary Clinton Loves America' on 'The Late Show with David Letterman,' Monday, May 5, 2008, in New York. (AP Photo/CBS)
On the eve of the Indiana primary, Indiana boy David Letterman showcased Hillary Clinton on his show.
Hillary had the honor of delivering the Top Ten List.
HAGATNA, Guam -- Barack Obama defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton by seven votes in the Guam Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday. The count of more than 4,500 ballots took all night.
Neither candidate campaigned in the U.S. island territory in person, but both did long-distance media interviews and bought campaign ads for the caucuses.
Results of the count completed Sunday morning Guam time show delegates pledged to Obama with 2,264 votes to 2,257 for Clinton's slate. That means they'll split the pledged delegate votes. Obama's slate won in 14 of 21 districts.
...Eight pledged delegates will attend the convention, each with one-half vote.
U.S. citizens on the island, however, have no vote in the November election.
The territory also sends five superdelegates to the National Convention in August in Denver.
Voters picked two of the superdelegates, electing uncommitted Pilar Lujan party chairman and Jaime Paulino vice chairman. Paulina ran as an Obama supporter. One other existing superdelegate has favored Clinton and the votes of the other two have not been declared.
The Guam caucuses added two pledged delegates apiece for Clinton and Obama. The vote for party chairman and vice chairman also added a superdelegate for Obama and subtracted one for Clinton because the outgoing vice chair had endorsed the New York senator.
Obama had a total of 1,742.5 delegates, including endorsements from party and elected officials who will serve as superdelegates. Clinton had 1,607.5 delegates, according to The Associated Press tally.
Out of thousands of votes, Obama beat Hillary by only seven!
It used to be that [Obama] was incandescent and [Hillary] was merely inveterate. Now she’s bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.
Hillary is not getting much sleep or exercise, and doesn’t, like the ascetic Obama, abstain from junk food and coffee and get up at dawn to work out on the road. She’s still a long shot and she’s 14 years older than her rival.
Yet she’s the one who is more energetic and focused and beaming, and he’s the one who seems uneven and gauzy, often fatigued and unable to disguise being fed up with the slog. Even his speeches don’t have the same pizazz.
This is a setup. Dowd speaks admiringly of Hillary before she goes in for the kill.
...Even some Obama fans find Hillary’s toughness and shameless shape-shifting compelling. Having lost the White House twice to brass-knuckled pols, the Dems may be drawn to a woman who thinks like Karl Rove.
James Clyburn, the influential black congressman from South Carolina, says that some blacks are buying into the 2012 Tonya Harding conspiracy theory: that the Clintons know they can’t beat Obama this time, so they are “hell-bound,” as Clyburn put it, to shred him so he’ll lose to McCain and Hillary will be able to try again in 2012 — when McCain is 76.
In interviews, Clyburn called the tactics of the Clintons and their henchmen “bizarre,” “disingenuous” and “scurrilous.”
...Hillary is burdened by her husband’s inflammatory remarks on race and her own willingness to burn the party to save the party.
The Nixonian Hillary has a ravenous hunger that Obama lacks. Literally — at a birthday party in Philly for her photographer, she was devouring the chips and dip with two hands — and viscerally.
I would like to know what Dowd thinks was so inflammatory about Bill's remarks on race. She's very vague.
She's certainly not vague about what she thinks of Hillary. Dowd casts her as a she-devil.
When a lib compares another lib to Karl Rove, that's about as low as one can go.
Calling Hillary "Nixonian" is also quite a shot.
But Dowd really gets vicious when she calls Hillary a pig with the chips and dip.
There are so many complaints about the superficial nature of this presidential race, yet Queen lib Dowd isn't exactly steering away from the superficial and focusing on substance in this column.
After slamming Hillary, Dowd dwells on the very matters that Obama wants to go away.
At Joe’s Junction gas station in Indianapolis, Obama did his best to shoo away the pesky elitist label. Accused by an Indianapolis reporter of looking like a GQ cover, he said he has only four pairs of shoes and buys “five of the same suit and then I patch them up and wear them repeatedly.” But his campaign refused to reveal the brand, presumably because it’s not J. C. Penney.
He dutifully enthused about carbs, assuring reporters that when he had dinner as a child with his Kansas grandparents, the food “would have been very familiar to anybody here in Indiana. A lot of pot roast, potatoes and Jell-O molds.”
But then he resumed wry whingeing about his 37 bowling score, explaining that he finished only seven frames, including two that “were bowled by a 10-year-old” and another by a 3-year-old.
“I don’t want to go out of my way to sort of prove my street cred as a down-to-earth guy,” he said, after going out of his way.
It's crazy that a presidential candidate is trying to win votes by saying he grew up on meals of "pot roast, potatoes and Jell-O molds."
What is that?
Dowd is perpetuating the superficiality and silliness, and so is Obama.
When Obama says, “People know me,” Dowd concludes:
Not yet, but we will, one of these years.
She makes it sound like we don't know Obama.
I disagree. We are learning about him. He's not a smooth talking unknown anymore. That's his real problem.
Senator Barack Obama is starring in a growing number of campaign commercials, but the latest batch is being underwritten by Republicans.
In a sign that the racial, class and values issues simmering in the presidential campaign could spread into the larger political arena, Republican groups are turning recent bumps in Mr. Obama’s road — notably his comment that small-town Americans “cling” to guns and religion out of bitterness and a fiery speech by his former minister in which he condemned the United States — into attacks against Democrats down the ticket.
“The public, week by week, is becoming more familiar with his big-government, far-left vision for America,” said Ed Patru, a spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, an advocacy organization that is portraying Mr. Obama as ultraliberal in an advertisement running in Louisiana before a special election for a House seat.
Republicans say the new focus on Mr. Obama reflects their view that he remains the more likely Democratic presidential nominee since he continues to lead Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in convention delegates. It also shows that Republicans, who have for months characterized Mrs. Clinton as the contender who would most energize Republican voters, now see vulnerabilities in Mr. Obama that could be liabilities for other Democrats on the ballot.
“There were times when Republicans reacted with just horror that he would lead the ticket,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst. “Now there is not the sense of him being invulnerable, the magic bullet. I think there has been a major change.”
The growing Republican emphasis on Mr. Obama could also help Mrs. Clinton plead her case that she is more electable, bolstering her argument to superdelegates that Republicans are poised to pounce on her relatively untested opponent.
...At the same time, some Democrats privately said the new Republican push could be a backdoor effort to buoy Mrs. Clinton, the candidate Republicans initially saw as the Democrat who would most rally Republicans and spur fund-raising. It has not been lost on Republican strategists that they can give pause to superdelegates leaning toward endorsing Mr. Obama.
...Democrats say Republicans are going to vilify either Democratic contender and distort his or her record in an effort to weaken the nominee and drag down fellow Democrats.
“We know they will use Karl Rove/Lee Atwater tactics no matter who the nominee is,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Republicans have lost their credibility on the issues they want to scare people on, like national security, so they will try a different strategy.”
Oooh, those evil, scheming Republicans.
Imagine. "Democrats say Republicans are going to vilify either Democratic contender and distort his or her record in an effort to weaken the nominee and drag down fellow Democrats."
What have the New York Times and the Washington Post and other media publications been doing to McCain? And what have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC been doing to McCain?
They certainly have not been taking the high road.
When the Republican nomination was still up for grabs, the lib outlets vilified and distorted the records of the Republican candidates, particularly the more conservative Republicans.
After McCain clinched the nomination, the New York Times actively campaigned to drag him down.
In spite of giving McCain its endorsement, there's been a whole lotta vilifying going on by the Times.
It's especially sleazy that the attacks weren't about matters that surfaced since the newspaper gave McCain its support.
The stories were tired, old ones that the Times tried to resuscitate.
All are planted to raise doubts about John McCain and his conservatism.
All regurgitate old news to make stories out of nothing.
I suspect the New York Times plans to run more goofy slop on McCain, desperately throwing anything against the wall in hopes that something will stick.
The Washington Post is also part of the "Attack McCain" apparatus.
It's so hypocritical to charge the Republicans with dirty campaigning, when the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media engage in it as well.
"Karl Rove/Lee Atwater tactics"--
What a joke!
Obama continues to lie about McCain and his line about being in Iraq for 100 years. It's an intentional distortion. Obama is lying to the American people about his opponent.
The reality is Obama is very vulnerable.
In addition to matters involving Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers being problematic, there's his extreme liberalism and inexperience and his disdain for gun-toting, religion-clinging Americans. His fear of the American flag doesn't help him either. Oh, yes... and he can't bowl.
As we get to know him, we see his arrogance and smugness, and his disingenuous. His disastrous performance in the last debate had to give Dems pause about Obama as their savior. What earlier seemed like a fresh face ushering in a new era of politics, now is exposed as the same old, same old.
The stunts like the fainting episodes at his rallies make Obama seem insincere. The snippy side of him, taunting Hillary Clinton, isn't very attractive.
He's a radical Leftist.
He's not a victim of dirty politics.
Obama drags himself down. The Republican Party really doesn't have to manufacture anything to do it for him.
All is not well under the Big Tent at the Democrat Party.
As the primary season drags on for the Dems, they are beginning to show their true colors.
The Dems are obsessed with color, skin color.
Although the GOP is so often characterized as the party of rich, white men, and as hostile to diversity, it's the Dems that are struggling with racial issues.
It is the question that has hung over Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and it loomed large on Tuesday night after his loss to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania: Why has he been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?
Lurking behind that question is another: Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?
Mr. Obama remains ahead of Mrs. Clinton in delegates, in the popular vote and in national polls, and Mrs. Clinton certainly has her own problems trying to herd Democrats into her corner.
But just when it seemed that the Democratic Party was close to anointing Mr. Obama as its nominee, he lost yet again in a big general election state, dragged down by his weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters. The composition of Mrs. Clinton’s support — or, looked at another way, the makeup of voters who have proved reluctant to embrace Mr. Obama — has Democrats wondering, if not worrying, about what role race may be playing.
“I’m sure there is some of that,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior political adviser, as he considered how race was playing among voters in late primary states. Mr. Axelrod said Mrs. Clinton’s biggest advantage had been among older voters, “and I think there is a general inclination on the part of the older voters to vote for what is more familiar.” He added: “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”
While arguably critical to determining the viability of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, the role of race is difficult to disentangle from the other strands of the political debate surrounding him, encompassing topics like values, elitism, ideology and experience. Although some polling evidence hints at the depth of racial attitudes in this country and the obstacles Mr. Obama faces winning white voters, it has historically proved challenging to measure how racial attitudes factor into voter decisions. (Respondents do not tend to announce to pollsters that they will not vote for a candidate because he or she is black.)
It is also hard to discount that Mr. Obama has arrived at this place in his candidacy after winning big victories in very white states. The crowds at his rallies are as white as any at a Clinton rally, and many analysts in both parties believe that racial attitudes in this country are changing at a breakneck pace, particularly among younger voters, making it risky to impose models from even four years ago on this unusual election.
What with Obama's big loss in Pennsylvania, Archie Bunker is once again rearing his head; and Adam Nagourney of the Times is playing on white liberal guilt.
Everyone seems to be asking: Why hasn't Obama been able to seal the deal?
"Lurking behind that question is another: Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?"
Time for the Dems to do some soul-searching. It's as though Nagourney wants to force white Dems to look at themselves and admit that they're racist, as if there's no other explanation for Obama's losses.
Nagourney points out that there have been "high-profile episodes that have rattled his campaign." No kidding.
Voters are getting to know Obama and what they're learning is not all good.
Nagourney seems to want Obama's problem to be race rather than his character, experience, and judgment.
Why is it incomprehensible that voters turned to Hillary because they are questioning Obama's qualifications to be the Dem nominee?
Isn't it possible that voters' concerns about the electability of their nominee have nothing to do with race and everything to do with the individual candidate?
I think it's troubling that the race issue is seen as a one-way street.
...For Mr. Obama, race presents two potential problems: Voters opposing him simply because he is black, and Democrats who will not support him because they do not think a black man can win a general election.
The results in Pennsylvania suggest that problems exist. A poll of Democratic voters conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press found that Mrs. Clinton drew 63 percent of the white vote while Mr. Obama drew 90 percent of the black vote, mirroring a pattern in many other states. More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.
Look at those numbers.
The striking thing is that only 10 percent of the black vote did not go to Obama.
Why is it that white voters are condemned when they don't vote for Obama, but black voters aren't condemned when they don't vote for Hillary?
Blacks appear to be voting based on race in far greater numbers than white voters. How racist! Why is that not an issue?
Nagourney cites two problems for Obama. The first is the possibility that voters oppose him simply because he's black.
Hillary has a similar problem. Do black voters oppose Hillary simply because she's white? That certainly appears to be the case.
The second problem for Obama is that Dem voters may doubt that a black man is capable of winning a general election.
Again, Hillary has a similar problem. Do Dem voters doubt that a woman is capable of winning a general election? Is that what's behind Hillary's losses.
I think it's weird that when Obama loses Dems will say it's because of his race. That's the same as saying Hillary's success is based on bigotry, not her abilities and policies. It's not that voters support her. It's that they're against Obama.
However, when Hillary loses, that sort of reasoning is tossed aside. She loses because voters actually support Obama. Her losses aren't chalked up to bigoted people not wanting to vote for a white woman.
Bottom line: The Dems aren't one big happy diverse bunch under a big tent.
Personally, I think the Dems have good reason to worry about the electability of their nominee in November, but not because of such superficial matters as race and gender.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scored a decisive victory over Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday in the Pennsylvania primary, giving her candidacy a critical boost as she struggles to raise money and persuade party leaders to let the Democratic nominating fight go on.
If Mrs. Clinton did not emerge from the bruising six-week campaign with a race-turning landslide — she still trails Mr. Obama in the popular vote and the delegate count — her victory nonetheless gives her a strong rationale for continuing her candidacy in spite of those Democrats who would prefer to coalesce around Mr. Obama.
Indeed, in her victory speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton used the words “fight,” “fighter” and “fighting” repeatedly — not only to promise financially struggling Americans that she would protect them, but also to convey that she had the resolve and confidence to stay in the race.
As for Mr. Obama, the loss only hardened the determination of his advisers to overwhelm Mrs. Clinton’s campaign with his substantial financial advantage — he took in $42 million in March to her $21 million — and with the cold calculus that he is still solidly ahead in their pursuit of the 2,025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. In his concession speech, he kept the focus on the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, a subject Mrs. Clinton avoided in her address.
...And she also defiantly acknowledged the Democrats and the pundits who have called on her to end her candidacy.
“Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either,” Mrs. Clinton said to fervent cheers and applause at her victory party, where she was joined by former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, as well as two key supporters in the state, Gov. Edward G. Rendell and Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia.
While Mrs. Clinton repeatedly sounded economically populist notes in her speech, Mr. Obama touched on those themes but was also more expansive in his remarks on Tuesday night, sharply criticizing Mr. McCain, as offering “more of the same” of President Bush’s policies. Mr. Obama left Pennsylvania late Tuesday to make his remarks in Indiana, which holds its primary on May 6, along with North Carolina.
Hillary trounced Obama with her 55 percent to 45 percent victory.
No wonder Obama put the focus on John McCain in his post-PA primary remarks. He didn't want to focus on his BITTER defeat. In effect, by zeroing in on McCain, he was saying that he's got the nomination. He can't be bothered wasting more time on Hillary.
Yes, it's a long shot for Hillary; but this race is not over yet.
In spite of so many high profile endorsements for Obama and calls from them for Hillary to drop out, American voters aren't abandoning her.
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
...By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
Yes, the Dems have a real mess on their hands.
I think it's wrong to slam Hillary for being "mostly responsible" for the negativity. She's had to raise issues about Obama that the lib media have failed to raise. It's not Hillary's fault that the media aren't doing their jobs because so many of them have that bizarre infatuation with Obama.
The Times calls for the super delegates to step in, and soon.
...It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
The super delegates can wait. Let the voices of the American people be heard.
"Call off the dogs"?
The lib media are the dogs. When they went starry-eyed and started swooning over Obama and turning on Hillary, she had a choice: respond or quit.
She didn't quit.
Furthermore, this editorial fails to acknowledge that Hillary has won over nearly as many of the voters as Obama. The popular vote is very tight.
I think the party elders screwed up when they went with the flavor of the month Obama and allowed themselves to be swept up in Obama-mania.
Obama isn't the savior of the Dems that he seemed to be just a couple of months back. He carries a lot of negative baggage, too. Hillary isn't the only one with problems in that area.
Though Hillary won big and Obama lost big last night, I think the real winner is John McCain.
Many years have passed since the Democratic Party was as much a part of American Catholic identity as weekly Mass and parochial school. But it still came as a shock to many Democrats to lose the Catholic vote, a key group in must-win states like Ohio, in the 2004 presidential election.
It is an experience they are determined not to repeat.
I think that opening sentence is awful.
At one time, more Catholics voted for Democrats than Republicans. OK, but don't say that affiliation with the Dems was as integral to American Catholic identity as weekly Mass. It never was.
That's terrible. Identity as a Catholic has no politics. Catholic values can affect one's politics but that's not the same as one's identity as a Catholic.
The presidential candidates are in the middle of an escalating battle for Catholic voters — most immediately between Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, but also between the two parties as they look ahead to the general election. This struggle is an important part of the backdrop for Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States starting Tuesday, which has drawn gestures of respect from all of the presidential contenders.
There is widespread agreement that American Catholic voters are far more diverse than monolithic. Even so, both the Clinton and the Obama campaigns have hired Catholic outreach directors, deployed an army of prominent Catholic surrogates testifying on their behalf and created mailings that highlight their commitment to Catholic social teachings on economic justice and the common good.
Dismayed at losing so many Catholic and other religious voters to the Republicans in 2004, Democrats talk far more often, and more comfortably, about their values and the importance of their own faith these days.
Essentially, they have tried to broaden the definition of “values” issues beyond abortion rights, on which they disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and many religious conservatives.
There is no way for any candidate to devise a plan to win over Catholic voters. As a group, we are far too diverse.
Furthermore, I'm not viewing Pope Benedict's visit to the U.S. in terms of the presidential election. I don't associate the Holy Father with Obama or Hillary or McCain. The Pope isn't coming here to address American politics.
...Mrs. Clinton, a Methodist, carried the Catholic vote overwhelmingly in Ohio, Texas and several other major states that have held primaries and caucuses this year, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls; she hopes to do so again in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next week. (Aides say she is particularly popular among nuns.) In an open letter to Pennsylvania Catholics, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., two children of Robert F. Kennedy, wrote, “Catholics have a partner in Hillary Clinton, one who will work to advance the common good of all Pennsylvanians and all Americans.”
Catholics certainly don't have a partner in Hillary Clinton if they're interested in advancing the common good for all unborn Americans.
...[O]n Friday, the Obama campaign unveiled its national advisory council of prominent Catholics, including elected officials, theologians, academics, nuns and social advocates. On a conference call, Representative Patrick J. Murphy — who represents Bucks County, Pa., and prefaced his remarks by noting that he was St. Anselm’s Altar Boy of the Year in 1987 — said that Mr. Obama spoke “to the better angels in all of us.”
Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, another prominent Catholic supporting Mr. Obama, noted: “I don’t agree with him on some issues. We disagree on abortion.” But Mr. Casey said he believed that Mr. Obama, as president, would advocate for “the least, the last and the lost.”
Obama is so radical when it comes to abortion that he refused to take a stand against infanticide. He's very much like Russ Feingold in that respect.
Casey's assertion that Obama would be an advocate for "the least, the last and the lost" isn't true. Obama selects only some of "the least, the last and the lost" to defend. He doesn't want to protect the unborn. He wouldn't even agree to protect a child "accidentally" born during a botched partial birth abortion. Obama would not protect the disabled, like Terri Schiavo.
...“We’re going to devote substantial resources to winning the Catholic vote,” said Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. “I think the natural home of Catholics is the Republican Party.”
The campaign of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, recently rolled out his National Catholics for McCain Committee, with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, as a co-chairman.
Mr. Brownback’s chief of staff, Rob Wasinger, said Mr. McCain was “the full package” for Catholics, with his opposition to abortion and his support for overhauling immigration laws, a major issue for Hispanic Catholics. Against this backdrop, the pope’s words and gestures will be scrutinized not just by the faithful and the theologians, but also by political professionals in both parties.
By far, McCain's position on prolife issues makes him a superior candidate compared to Hillary and Obama, but he's not quite the full package. McCain has repeatedly voted to increase taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research.
“The Republicans are just hoping and praying he’ll say something about abortion and gay marriage, and the Democrats are terrified he will,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow and political scientist at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “But at the United Nations, he will also say a lot of things to the left of Hillary and Obama.”
In fact, some conservatives worry that the war in Iraq, opposed by the Catholic Church from its inception, is hurting the Republican Party among Catholic voters — just as it is with other independent and swing voters.
“There’s one big question mark hanging over the Catholic vote, and that’s the Iraq war,” said Deal Hudson, an informal adviser to Mr. McCain and a longtime adviser to President Bush on Catholic matters.
There's no "one big question mark hanging over the Catholic vote."
Of course, the war in Iraq is of great concern to most Americans. It's an issue that's sure to factor into this election. However, I don't think it will determine the Catholic vote, mainly because I don't think there is a "Catholic" vote.
Catholics are far too diverse to be defined as a voting bloc.
In spite of how the media are approaching the Pope's visit, he isn't coming to America to endorse a candidate for president. I don't think Catholics in America are looking for that. The Pope is on a spiritual mission. He wants to encourage change and give us hope. (He sounds like a candidate, doesn't he?)
Whatever the Holy Father says to Americans, I'm sure he won't pander.
It took a couple of days, but Barack Obama decided to come out swinging yesterday.
He's as mad as hell about being called condescending and elitist and he's not going to take this anymore!
So during an address to the United Steelworkers Union in Steelton, PA, he strutted around the stage like a stand-up comic.
OBAMA: I expected this out of John McCain, but I've got to say I'm a little disappointed when I start hearing the exact same talking points coming out of my Democratic colleague Hillary Clinton. She knows better. She knows better. Shame on her! Shame on her! She knows better. Huh! She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the 2nd Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley.
Hillary Clinton's out there, you know, like she's out in the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on. She's knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind. You know, come on.
He seemed to have a great time, laughing at his own jokes. Personally, I think he was more condescending than funny.
STEELTON, Pa. -- Accused of being elitist, a defiant Sen. Barack Obama lashed out at rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying "Shame on her" and mocking her vocal support for gun rights as their political tempest threatened to consume the Democratic presidential race.
It was a startling twist Sunday to the three-day controversy that erupted after the publication of comments the Illinois senator made at a San Francisco fundraiser a week earlier. At that event, Obama said some working-class voters are bitter over their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result.
Campaigning Sunday in Pennsylvania, Clinton derided the comments as "elitist and divisive" and suggested they could doom Democrats' chances for recapturing the White House in November if Obama were the nominee.
At a union hall outside Harrisburg, Obama said he'd expected blowback from GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain but said he'd been "a little disappointed" to be criticized by Clinton.
Laughing, the Illinois senator noted Clinton seemed much more interested in guns since he made his comments than she had been in the past. On Saturday, the former first lady reminisced about learning to shoot on summer vacations in Scranton, where her father grew up.
I don't know if it was wise for Obama to mock and openly laugh at Hillary.
It was a scene from a playground. He came off like a kid making fun of another kid rather than a presidential candidate seriously addressing a matter.
It was arrogant the way he admonished her, talking down to her. "She knows better. Shame on her."
Obama appears to think he can get away with anything and talk his way out of any mess. Is that because he knows he can?
Slick Willie may have met his match-- Slick Barry.
Barack Obama is following Hillary's lead. He, too, wants President Bush to be a no-show at the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing.
LEVITTOWN, Pa. -- Barack Obama joined Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday in calling for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies for the Olympic Games in Beijing.
Clinton had commended British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for announcing that he will skip the August ceremonies in China's capital, and called on Obama and likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain to join her in urging Bush to do the same.
Brown continues to insist that he never intended to be at the opening ceremony. His absence supposedly is not a political statement or connected to a boycott.
In effect, Hillary is commending Brown for his schedule that never included an appearance in Beijing for the opening ceremony in the first place.
Obama did later in the day; his campaign issued a statement in which, for the first time, he urged Bush to boycott the festivities.
...Obama said a boycott "should be firmly on the table," but that a decision should be made closer to the Games.
"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies," he said. "As I have communicated in public and to the president, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet."
Obama previously had said he was conflicted about U.S. participation, but that "there should be consequences" for China if it does not take steps to respect rights and freedoms in Tibet.
Obama seems to be playing catch-up with Hillary. He had to issue a statement after she was making headlines on the matter.
I think it's weird that Obama wants to talk to tyrants and terrorists unconditionally but he thinks going to China for the opening ceremony of the Olympics may be inappropriate.
He's concerned about human rights yet he said the war that freed the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality was "dumb."
I'll say what I've said before:
Why has this opening ceremony taken on such importance?
Why has attendance become a sort of test of a leader's support for "basic human freedoms"?
That makes no sense to me. Bush has spent his tenure in office leading the fight for freedom; and the Dems have led persistent attacks against his efforts.
The opening ceremony, a few hours-- That's what matters. That's everything.
Of course, attendance at the games themselves and the closing ceremony wouldn't be a problem at all. For some reason, that wouldn't send the wrong message to the Chinese.
That's ridiculous.
This sudden concern about conditions in China ticks me off. What do Obama and Hillary think has been going on in China for DECADES under this oppressive communist regime?
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has stopped telling a story of a pregnant woman's medical tragedy after an Ohio hospital challenged its accuracy last weekend.
But recent accounts of the episode have omitted key details that suggest there was more truth in the essence of Clinton's tale than her critics, and even her presidential campaign, have acknowledged.
Since early March, the New York senator has often told campaign audiences a heartbreaking story of a young Ohio woman who began having problems with her pregnancy. She said the woman was twice turned away by a local hospital because she had no health insurance and could not pay a $100 minimum charge.
The article supplies "THE SPIN":
Because Clinton never named the woman or the hospital, the story generated only gasps and tears at campaign stops. But on April 3, The Washington Post named the woman, Trina Bachtel, 35, of Middleport, Ohio, who died last August. The Daily Sentinel, a paper published in nearby Pomeroy, Ohio, cited Bachtel's name the next day.
With the patient's name now publicized locally and nationally, officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio, feared their facility would be falsely accused. Bachtel was indeed treated in August at O'Bleness, where her baby was stillborn. But Bachtel was never refused treatment there, and she even had medical insurance, the officials told The New York Times in a story published Saturday.
"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O'Bleness Health System," told the Times.
Media outlets and political Web sites began criticizing Clinton for retelling the unsubstantiated story. By Saturday night, Clinton's campaign said she would drop it from her speeches.
Then, it supplies "THE FACTS":
Clinton said she heard the story from Meigs County Deputy Sheriff Bryan Holman during a visit to Pomeroy, before the March 4 Ohio primary.
In a March 26 phone interview with The Associated Press, Holman said he had told Clinton the story in essentially the same way she was retelling it in her speeches. He said he knew the Bachtel story only second hand, and lacked several details.
The AP then spoke with Bachtel's aunt, Susie Casto of Middleport, who helped raise the woman. She said Bachtel, who worked at a pizza parlor, did in fact have health insurance when she and her baby died.
But at an earlier time, Casto said, Bachtel lacked health insurance and ran up unpaid bills when treated at a clinic near her home in Middleport. When she returned for treatment when pregnant, the clinic demanded $100 per visit to help retire the outstanding debt, Casto said. Because Bachtel could not afford the fees and found it difficult to travel, her aunt said, she postponed receiving treatment.
Bachtel eventually went to O'Bleness, about 30 miles to the north, for attention.
Casto declined to name the clinics or hospitals involved, and said she felt medical professionals did all they could to save Bachtel and her unborn child.
Pomeroy has about 2,000 residents and two medical clinics. One is affiliated with O'Bleness, the other is the Holzer Clinic, part of a nine-facility chain.
O'Bleness Health System spokeswoman Lynn Anastos said Monday that Bachtel was not a patient at their Pomeroy facility and "she would not have been turned away for lack of payment" if she had sought treatment there.
Holzer associate administrator Jim Blevins said his company has no record of Bachtel being a patient for the past five years. About half of Holzer's patients are "charity cases," he said, and the company tries to work out payment schedules with those who fall behind on their bills.
In some cases, Blevins said, Holzer clinics place "credit restrictions" on patients believed to be able but unwilling to pay their bills. That would not apply to patients needing immediate or emergency care, he said.
It's weird that neither medical clinic had a record of treating Bachtel.
And both facilities insist that patients in need of prompt care aren't turned away.
It doesn't add up. Casto's account doesn't exactly offer the details necessary to follow-up on the case.
Nonetheless, AP concludes:
Clinton erred in telling audiences that the Ohio woman lacked insurance when seeking help for her troubled pregnancy. But according to Casto's account, Bachtel's medical tragedy began with circumstances very close to the essence of Clinton's now-abandoned account: the lack of insurance created a $100 barrier to needed medical attention close to home.
There's no question the death of the mother and her baby is a tragedy.
But did the tragedy occur because of this "$100 barrier" that wasn't really a barrier to receiving life-saving care?
So, Hillary's oft-told secondhand story wasn't a complete lie. At one point, the woman didn't have insurance and she was asked to pay $100 to retire her unpaid bills, according to her aunt.
But because the woman did have insurance at the time of her pregnancy and her aunt credits the medical professionals involved with doing all they could, the story Hillary told was very heavy on inaccuracies. The "part errors" far outweighed the "part truth."
I think it was poor judgment on Hillary's part to incorporate an unsubstantiated story into her stump speech.
Some guy tells her a story and she repeats it as fact?
Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”
The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.
Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.
As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.
“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”
Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”
...“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”
It's not OK to be telling untruths on the campaign trail.
Hillary has to be more careful about what she's saying. She has to have her facts straight.
That said, I think the lib media are holding Hillary to a standard that they don't apply to Barack Obama. He lies repeatedly about John McCain and his "100 years in Iraq" comment, but Obama gets a pass.
He lied about being unaware of his spiritual mentor's outrageous views and then later admitted that when he attended services he heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright say controversial things.
And when Al Gore was running for president in 2000, the lib media certainly didn't call on him to explain his laundry list of whoppers.
I'm not excusing Hillary for "misspeaking" or failing to give voters accurate information.
However, I do find it strange that the media jump down her throat for inaccuracies while looking the other way when Obama "misspeaks."
They didn't demand that Gore retract his lies.
Bottom line: The media are not treating Hillary fairly. They're treating her like a Republican.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton released tax data Friday showing they earned $109 million over the last eight years, an ascent into the uppermost tier of American taxpayers that seemed unimaginable in 2001, when they left the White House with little money and facing millions in legal bills.
The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.
During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released the eight years of income tax information late Friday, following a rising clamor on the campaign trail for her to follow the lead of her opponent, Senator Barack Obama, who had previously disclosed his tax returns for the same period. In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.
In releasing seven years of tax returns, plus a summary of income for last year, the Clinton campaign noted that the couple had disclosed all their income tax records since Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Neither Mr. Obama, of Illinois, nor Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has released his 2007 tax-return information, and Mr. McCain has not released tax returns from previous years.
“The Clintons have now made public 30 years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service,” said Jay Carson, a campaign spokesman. “None of Hillary Clinton’s presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information.”
Mr. Obama’s tax returns show that he and his wife, Michelle, reported about $1 million in income in 2006, much of it from his book deals. Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, an heiress to a beer distributorship fortune, is believed to be worth tens of millions of dollars, but the exact amount is unclear.
Finally, we get to pour over the Clinton tax returns. What a way to spend a weekend in Spring! What could be more enjoyable?
The returns reveal what I expected. The Clintons have a lot of money.
The Obamas are wealthy and so are the McCains.
What does this information tell us?
The presidential candidates are rich. They're privileged. They're powerful.
Tell me something I don't know.
If there's a lesson to be learned here I guess it's that having tons of money doesn't guarantee that you get what you want.
Hillary Clinton was at a desk. The screen was time-stamped 3:00 AM. And of course, the phone rang. It was Jay Leno, asking Hillary to appear on the show. She agreed and hung up. The punchline was Hillary saying she needed to get caller ID.
After Leno's monologue and a "Jaywalking" segment, Hillary Clinton came out for the interview, the Rocky theme playing in the background.
Her opening line: She said she was worried she wasn't going to make it. She joked that she was pinned down by sniper fire.
Then she said the whole "Bosnia sniper fire" incident was just a lapse. The audience bought that.
Hillary seemed very relaxed throughout.
She and Leno talked issues. First, it's the economy, stupid.
"Unfortunately, we have such a stupid economy," Hillary said.
She said that President Bush wasn't interested in doing anything about it. She said hopefully we can survive until he's gone. The audience applauded.
Hillary talked about ending "No child left behind." The audience cheered.
She started to babble a bit. It seemed like she was on auto-pilot and stumping. Not too entertaining. When Hillary is just chatting, she's much more engaging than when she prattles about policy.
After the commercial break, Leno asked Hillary about Chelsea. He brought up that Chelsea said she thought her mom would make a better president than her dad.
Hillary replied, "She's such a smart, young woman."
The audience laughed.
Leno mentioned Bill Clinton getting red-faced and flipping out when he's on the campaign trail for Hillary. He told a personal story that related to family members supporting their loved ones when they come under fire. Early in his career, when Leno would get heckled, his dad would become angry at the hecklers.
Hillary equated Leno's dad with Bill. When you love someone, it's natural to have trouble holding back.
Hillary said, "He's doing a great job for me, but he does get a little carried away sometimes."
Leno brought up the Michigan and Florida situation.
Hillary argued that the Dem voters of Michigan and Florida shouldn't be disenfranchised. She suggested that if their primary votes aren't counted, then they won't turn out in November. Leno challenged her about the Democrat Party rules, but he let that go.
There were definitely people in the audience acting as cheerleaders for Hillary, leading applause.
Then they talked about super delegates and their role in the nomination process.
At the end of the interview, Leno said, "Well listen, it's great to sit on the sidelines and watch this battle go on."
Hillary added, "It's quite a battle royal."
Leno concluded, "I give you a lot of credit. You got a lot more moxie than I do. God bless you."
Hillary ended the segment with her signature laugh.
Leno did a good job. He treated Hillary with respect.
From past interviews that he's done with the insane Obama-worshipper Chris Matthews, I get the feeling that Leno is in awe of Barack Obama, too. On a number of occasions, I've heard Leno play down the Rev. Wright controversy with other guests.
If Leno is an Obama backer, as I suspect he is, he didn't let it show during the interview with Hillary.
Leno also shows John McCain a great deal of respect when he's a guest on the show.
Randi Rhodes, an afternoon host for the progressive Air America radio network, was suspended Thursday after repeatedly insulting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event last month.
Ms. Rhodes used vulgar language that likened Mrs. Clinton to a prostitute at an event sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in the San Francisco area, on March 22. A video of Ms. Rhodes’ remarks was published to the video-sharing Web site YouTube on Tuesday, prompting condemnations by some bloggers. In a statement, Charlie Kireker, the chair of Air America, said the radio network “encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts.”
The network called Ms. Rhodes’ suspension “indefinite” and did not elaborate on the fate of her daily three-hour radio show. “The Randi Rhodes Show” is normally broadcast from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays. Sam Seder, another Air America host, was scheduled to fill in for Ms. Rhodes on Thursday.
If you think that was a heavy-handed reaction by Air America, watch Rhodes' rant.
Read excerpts of the video. I think the transcript is pretty accurate. The audio was quite clear.
Rhodes on Geraldine Ferraro--
Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag. Who knew?
She's like, 'Why am I the bad guy here? I just don't want an anti-Semite racist in the White House.'
Like Nixon, or Ronald Reagan, or Dick Cheney who moved to Wyoming so he would never have to see a black guy or a Jew ever, and still run for vice president of the United States.
It's like, unbelievable to me. I can't believe this. What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a f---ing whore!
...I want to see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you, I'm a whore' type of press conference, right? Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his whore of a wife.
Rhodes on Hillary Clinton--
Hillary is a big f---ing whore, too, OK?
...She is a big f---ing whore, and you know why she's a big f---ing whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, a—hole. You know, I didn't say [?] you, but I didn't say 'f--- you...' She's like, 'The pledged delegates aren't legally obligated to do anything.'
Oh, f--- you! You know, just f--- you!
Rhodes on Hillary Clinton and Sheryl Crow--
Wouldn't you rather vote for Sheryl Crow than Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't you? I would.
I mean, Sheryl Crow, not only is she better on the issues, right?... of global significance, but she's traveled to Bosnia with Hillary and Sinbad, which means she had to put up with Hillary’s sh-t in Bosnia.
And you know Hillary is probably a f---ing line-jumper, too, right? She's probably one of these women that you know, 'Oh but I have to pee, and I have to get to the mirror, and I don't give a sh-t if there's a line because I'm solving the problems of the world.'
And Sheryl's going, 'F-- you! I'm Sheryl Crow and I'm not jumping the damn line. Wait your turn, bitch.'
Certainly, Rhodes has the right to say whatever she wants.
But if she was appearing as a representative of Air America at the KKGN event, I can understand why the failed lib radio network suspended her.
And the Left always whines about conservative talk radio being so hateful.
Let's not pretend that the Democrat Party is one big happy diverse family.
The battle to be the presidential nominee is so bitter.
If it ended tomorrow, that wouldn't undo the damage that's been done.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Former President Clinton is still smarting over New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama.
During a private meeting with California Democrats this past weekend, Clinton grew red-faced as he talked about how he expected Richardson, who was a member of Clinton's Cabinet, to back Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidential nomination or at least stay neutral, according to several people who attended.
Instead, Richardson endorsed Obama late last month, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader."
"He sort of gets a little redder and redder and redder, but he wasn't off the deep end as I had seen him in the past," said Inola Henry, an uncommitted superdelegate. "It was sort of like, 'Gee, I'm a martyr.' He seemed more hurt than anything."
Clinton used his appearance at the state Democratic Party convention in San Jose to lobby California's 21 uncommitted superdelegates to support his wife.
After posing for a group photograph with the former president, superdelegate Rachel Binah told Clinton she was disappointed that one of his allies, strategist James Carville, had compared Richardson to Judas after he endorsed Obama.
Clinton, according to several people present, distanced himself from Carville's remarks. But he went on to say that he had not expected Richardson to endorse the Illinois senator, especially since the New Mexico governor had invited Clinton to Santa Fe to watch the Super Bowl on Feb. 3.
"He did say he certainly had been led to believe that he was going to get the endorsement," Henry said Wednesday. She was one of about 15 superdelegates — some uncommitted, others backing Clinton — who attended Sunday's meeting with Clinton before he addressed the convention.
Aleita Huguenin, another superdelegate, remembered Clinton saying, "We thought he'd let us know if he did an endorsement." But Huguenin said the comments about Richardson were "a minor blip in the whole meeting."
According superdelegate Chris Stampolis, Clinton said only that Richardson had promised not to endorse Obama, saying, "'He told me to my face five times he would not do that.'"
Binah did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but she previously told The Associated Press she supports Clinton. Other superdelegates interviewed by the AP said it was Binah's statement that prompted Clinton's comments about Richardson's decision.
Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for Richardson, said his boss never promised to endorse Hillary Clinton.
"He never told the president or anybody else, for that matter," Shipley said. "The governor respectfully disagrees with the president."
How angry did Bill Clinton really get?
What shade of red was his face?
Certainly, news of Bill's impassioned remarks, his "eruption," isn't coming from Hillary's campaign.
The telling of this incident provides an opportunity for Barack Obama's campaign to put Bill Clinton in a bad light again.
When Bill's gets mad, voters turn on Hillary and turn to Obama.
So who would want to spread news of Bill Clinton's screed?
I think Richardson is pushing back. He's defending his good name after being deemed a traitor.
Bill Clinton can't seem to handle betrayal. He's used to doing the betraying, not being on the receiving end.
I don't care about accounts of the various psychodramas among the Democrats. Clinton's face turned red. Richardson's a traitor. Whatever.
I care about what it all means for November. I don't think the wounds suffered in the battle for the nomination are superficial ones. The cuts are deep. The fractures are severe.
Will it be possible for the Dems to heal in time to wage a vigorous campaign against John McCain?
I don't know, but I do think the pain and the bad feelings will linger.
For the most part, the divisions among the Dems are about the candidates' personality, race, and gender. There aren't major policy differences between Obama and Hillary. This tight race is a popularity contest, void of significant substance.
