Monday, April 07, 2008

Myth of the Media Darling

Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft is one of the few (and quite possibly the only) sane Obama supporter left in Left Blogistan. He has an unfortunate belief that somehow Obama is a better candidate for the Democrats in the general because he is a "media darling", by which BTD means that the MSM will go easy on Obama in a way they would not on other Democratic candidates especially Hillary. It's not that they will be nice to Obama, but that they won't be quite a brutal.

This is a variation on the specious argument that Obama is more electable than Hillary because his negatives are lower, but has the advantge of being argued soberly by someone who admits he could very well be wrong. Unlike the usual popularity-based argument, BTD does not confuse expressions of CDS with Hillary actually being anything like the moronic portrayals of her. He's looking at relative levels of slime.

But he is wrong, and the reason he is wrong is due to the way CDS works in the media. They don't love Obama or consider him any kind of darling. They want him to beat Hillary. Period. End of affection. There really isn't a postitive take on Obama as such. He is more of a foil for the attacks on Clinton than gaining any great well of affection among the Russerts and Matthews of the press. Maureen Dowd may be psychotic, but she is channeling the actual attitude of the press corps(e) towards Obama - weak, effeminate, a pretty little toy they will soon grow tired of.
Obama's role in the campaign meta story is to rescue the Democratic Party from the clutches of the evil Clintons. The best and brightest on the left have totally bought into this fantasy to the point where they can't help acting out their deepest oedipal fantasies of what Hillary wants to do to their manhood, and the Dean faction of the DNC is more than happy to use it in a triumphal way, declaring the Obama has already won so go home already!

The trouble is, he can fulfill his role and still be a lovely punching bag for the media the second he secures the nomination. When the wimp is put next to the war hero, the MSM's leg thrills will be reserved for Big John.

Touting the Media Darling meme also overlooks the most concrete phenomenon of the campaign - Hillary wins despite the shit. Her allegedly overwhelming negatives don't hurt her much in large Democratic primaries, and those pesky voters (you know, the ones who actually make the decisions? Yeah, them!) far outnumber the Kewl Kidz partying on the bus and infesting the blogz. Even with every PR advantage he could possibly wish for - money up the kazoo, anti-democratic caucus system, fawning press, even the guy who kidnapped Josh Marshall singing his praises - Obama cannot win over enough voters to close the deal, and the upcoming primaries are his weakest spots in the entire campaign. And we're not even getting into the FL/MI backlash.

The media will, of course, bash Hillary. They've done it for decades now and the public has tuned it out. Ho-hum, yeah, yeah, she killed Vince Foster out of jealousy over his involvement with a lesbian drug dealer out in Whitewater, whatever. She's evil incarnate and is a corporatist communist who will turn us all into imperialst socialists, yawn, yeah, I heard that somewhere. What the current campaign has also shown is that the nastier the media gets to her, the more strongly people rally to her side.

Hillary is the opposite of a media darling. She's the voters' darling, and that is how you win elections.



janicen said...

Thank you for your brilliant writing. I look forward to every one of your posts.

CognitiveDissonance said...

Anglachel, I've come to the same conclusion. Women especially are furious at the way the media savages her, even more so than liberals were furious at them during Bill's administration. I have no doubt that the worse they get, the more votes she gets. And I really think she would get the best of a comparison with John McCain. I can't believe how many Republican women have told me they are voting for Hillary. And these are women who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives. Part of it is the huge feeling of unfairness they've had. But another part is that they get the need for Universal health care, even when they didn't 16 years ago.

I've also wondered at Big Tent Democrat's assessment of the media situation in relation to Obama - particularly after the Jeremiah Wright fiasco. I continue to believe that will sink him in the General all by itself. Then when you throw on Rezko, Ayres, Meeks, Farrakhan - it's not going to be pretty. I'm really amazed that so many don't understand how the press works and what they are doing. It is pretty obvious to me.

cutepeachpanda said...

Agreed. I think BTD is a closeted Clinton supporter. I have friends like this. They supported Obama in the beginning but are now having buyers remorse and feelings of embarassment over the way they and their fellow Obamabots have acted. I doubt BTD will tell us if he's changed his mind and now supports Clinton. I can tell that he has lots of doubts about his preferred candidate. I see some of the Obama paraphenalia slowly coming down my friends' facebook wall but they are still part of the "One Million for Barack Obama" facebook group. Hahaha...yeah, right. I've just come to the conclusion that some of my friends have bought into CDS and the media darling myth so they still believe that Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. I think they are wrong too. Disenfranchising millions voters and alienating Clintonites won't win anyone an election no matter how in love Tweety and Keith Obamaman are in love with Obama. It's the voters who will ultimately decide the next president, not the media whores.

Nance said...

anglachel, what do you think about the efforts of this website on obama ( while i find some of the bloggers' language raw for my taste, i still find a lot of their substantive points, especially about exploitation of racial tensions and about the unprecedented media onslaught, as valid--even alarming. i wonder if there's more to worry about in this primary election than i previously thought?

Palomino said...

Barack Obama's candidacy is the most cynical spectacle since the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings in October 1991 for Clarence Thomas, George H. W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Bush's cynical calculation was that the reactionary Thomas would have to be confirmed because members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would not want to be seen as "racists" by calling a black man to account for his meager qualifications, and Bush’s cynical calculation paid off. (Then Anita Hill turned up to show just how canny Bush’s calculation was. Remember how she was vilified? That episode did for the phrase "sexual harassment" what this Democratic primary has done for the word "misogyny.") Obama is letting himself be used by that cynical faction of the Democratic Party which is clearly ready to do anything if it will deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton, even if that means fielding a weak nominee and losing the general election. And who better to foil the first viable woman presidential candidate than a black man, however callow and unqualified he may be? Outside the inner circle of Democratic Party cynics, who surely know better—and God help us all if they’re sincere—the curious notion that the mainstream media will go easy on Obama if he's the nominee is a notion tenaciously clung to by privileged and idealistic white men, who assume that everyone shares their overdetermined racial guilt, itself a most patronizing form of racism, the same subtle kind that GWHB cannily banked on back in 1991. Way back then, the misogynist demonization of Anita Hill—or, as the despicable Thomas put it, the “high-tech lynching” of himself—was nothing but a brief if compelling sideshow to Thomas’s eventual preordained confirmation. This time, the misogynist demonization of Hillary Clinton is the main event, and the sideshow is Obama’s candidacy. Way back then, women all over the country watched what was happening to Anita Hill, and they said, “I believe her.” This primary season, women have been saying something like that once again, since January in New Hampshire, when the Hillary hatred became too obvious to be denied by anyone but the Obama Fan Base.

gendergappers said...

Just a few minutes ago I heard Thom Hartman interview a writer on AAR about his book about McCain and how he got and still gets away with everything as the darling of the media. They criticised both McC and the media for this.

They could have substituted BO in place of McC but neither one of them ever mentioned it. All of AAR hosts have gone over to the Dark side, even those that don't constantly crap on HRC. They are doing exactly what they criticised the media for doing when their target was Bush and the Repugs.

Padma said...

I never understood this about that blogger -- BTD. May be there are others who think that way. But they are giving way too much power to the media. They are essentially saying media can pick my nominee, or my president. I am not willing to heed this corrupt and insane media one inch. We should defy them and vote for the best qualified. It is amazing how Clinton is still standing and winning over people in spite of everything they have thrown at her. I hope BTD comes to this realization as well.

jacilyn said...

I remember my dad had this funny way of...sort of punctuating the words "good." and "President." whenever he spoke of Bill Clinton.

A sort of curious intensity that only got more so when the press failed to recognize the obvious: this is a good. president.

"The press was out to get him," my father would say, sorta darklike, and it was war: it was everyday people, of the sort who actually make things work, vs. fresh-faced college kids who come in with their theories and their ideals and their utter cluelessness of anything that goes on outside their sheltered borders, to explain patronizingly to the grown men how reality ought to be.

And you know, reading your blog today, I suddenly realized: it wasn't that my dad would ignore the press and continue to admire Bill.

It was that he admired Bill precisely because Bill inspired this reaction in the frothing press.

And the more they went after him, the more it accentuated the gap between those who judge a man by what he accomplishes, vs. those who judge a man by "who his people are", where he's from, what school he went to, whether his family tree goes all the way back to the Revolution ("aren't you lucky there were no immigration laws back then").

Ellen said...

What I think BTD and others fail to understand is that the 'Media Darling' thing is really "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and if their enemy(Clinton) is removed then the media et al will have no problem tearing the Golden Boy to shreds.

Thank you Anglachel for all your insightful writing and analysis.

Shainzona said...

In January I was not yet committed to any candidate and one day I (accidentally) heard Ed Schultz and he was tearing Hillary to pieces. I called the show and told him that if he and the media continued this I was going to vote for her just to spite them.

Naturally he claimed that he doesn't dislike Hillary but she's X and Y and Z. I laughed. And began supporting HRC from that moment on.

Hey, thanks Big Ed. I discovered in the process that she is the best candidate and will make a really great POTUS.

Oh, I stopped listening to Schultz that very same day. So I benefited in two really important ways.

Sherry said...

Over at Corrente, a poster called Frenchdoc differentiates the structure of prejudice from the discourse. Both race and gender, Frenchdoc explains, are structurally disadvantaged but discourse allows far more sexism than racism.

I bring this up to make a point that, on the surface, the MSM might go easier on Obama than they would on Clinton in the GE because racist speech is less acceptable than sexist speech.

But what the right has is that great underground of Swiftboaters and astroturfers and hate talkers (Limbaugh et al.) who would not hold back on their blogs and in their e-mails and on the air. There are still a fair number of people in the country who think that Obama is Muslim because of an e-mail campaign.

I am not giving advanatage to Obama on this. I just think the hate speech would be more underground if he were the nominee.

And shainzona, I, too, will admit to being polarized by the shameful sexist discourse in this campaign, much of it from those who are supposed to be on the same side. (Schultz, though, started out as a conservative, didn't he?) Hillary has spoken out against racism but Obama has not spoken out against sexism. He seems too busy playing the victim. I don't think Hillary does that, no matter how mean the press.

Shainzona said...

NOTE: this is not intended to be racist in any manner, so I aplogize in advance if anyone sees it this way. It’s just that as today’s “feminists” are dismissive of the work we “older” women/men did to gain women’s rights, it seems some AA’s see the work done to help race relations in the past is passe, and doesn’t count for anything. As gendergapper said the other day (about today’s young women…not the ones here, I might add!), “Personally and professionally, they landed on 3rd base and thought that they got a triple.” (I LOVE that line!)

There is something about Obama that I can't put my finger on. I think that, because I can't put a finger on it, it worries me even more.

For example, Obama can go to any church he wants. He can listen to any dogma he wants. He can even take his children with him. But what I want to know is what he believes after living through those sermons for 20 years (Obamaphiles say we only heard 30 second of sound bites - which, is, of course, ridiculous - Rev. Wright preached the same dogma all those years - he might have used a better choice of words sometimes, but he still preached the same things.) The issue I want to understand is the anger and threatening language that was used.

Am I really "whitey"? And what does Obama "blame" me for?

I have also been unsettled at Obama's overt embrace of his Kenyan heritage - a heritage he got from a man who deserted his mom and him right soon after he was born. BO was raised by his mother, step-father and grandparents. But the Kenyan connection gets much more play - the MSM even had cameras on his step-grandmother when he won Iowa. I'd like to hear more about what that means to him. What does he embrace from his father? What does he reject from his mother? How does he compare and contrast those life experiences with the person he is now (and I don't want romanitized fiction from his book).

And on his web site there was an endorsement from the New Black Liberation Party. And what role does Farkakan (spelling?) play in his psyche? Both of these groups/individuals are militant and angry. Where is Obama's anger?

Then today, I read the following. It's more of what I want to know about Obama and his views - Spike Lee sounds vaguely threatening to those of us old timers who don't see things the way new AA's do.

It just adds to something that is unsettling to me.

Here’s what Spike Lee has to say (from over at HuffPost):

“The Clintons, man, they would lie on a stack of Bibles. Snipers? That’s not misspeaking; that’s some pure bullshit. I voted for Clinton twice, but that’s over with. These old black politicians say, “Ooh, Massuh Clinton was good to us, massuh hired a lot of us,
massuh was good!” Hoo! Charlie Rangel, David Dinkins–they have to understand this is a new day. People ain’t feelin’ that stuff. It’s like a tide, and the people who get in the way are just gonna get
swept out into the ocean.”

Does Spike Lee attend Trinity Church in Chicago?

Chinaberry Turtle said...

Shainzona's quote of Spike Lee exemplifies a recurring metaphor on various Obama-blogs. Namely: any lingering black affection for the Clintons is akin to cowardly house-slave (as opposed to field-slave) affection for the white slave owner. It is important to understand the basis of this recurring metaphor.

The Clintons have worked hard in the past, through the passage of laws and policy, to reduce barriers against equality for minorities. Hillary is now running for president and asks for the votes of black people. Even in doing so, she acknowledges that it is legitimate for blacks to favor Obama instead. Bill overtly admitted as much at a campaign stop at a black university a while back.

And for this, it is now appropriate to analogize Hillary to a beligerent white slave owner who is maliciously exploiting the affection of some of her black slaves? This is an outrageous accusation and the metaphor is cruel and unjust.

But even more disturbing, what is the essential message behind this now-popular metaphor? Is it the following?: if a white person who has worked for equal rights in the past is faced in the future with a black competitor in his/her professional life, then said white person must refrain from competing against said black person lest the white person be metaphorically denigrated as a beligerent white slave owner.

This is a disturbing new formula that is being posited. If you are white and you are for social justice for blacks, then you must not engage in professional competition against blacks. You must roll over.

gendergappers said...

SHAINZONA - Yes, there are those that will scream racist whatever is said but I refuse to be intimidated. We've had race riots in this country that we still remember and it scares the crap out of government, business, blacks and whites and latinos.

So everyone treds lightly as Spike and his ilk use words that, those who are not brothers, are forbidden to use. He gets into our face and his threats may be lightly veiled but are none the less frightening - and very goddamned real.

OTOH, we've never seen women riot so there is no fear of us. The actions of the women who fought for our right to vote have faded into women's history - and is not a part of man's, read - the real history. No one is alive to remember what they went through.

We women have always been right there nearly mute and considered to be just the poles that hold up the big tent. We have a function but have never had respect. If the DNC did value women it would have come down like avenging angels from hell on BO and his nasty, lying and corrupt supporters including the media, for their treatment of HRC.

I had the same reaction to Ed Shultz as you did. He is the epitome of male hatred of women. I've contact AAR many times regarding him and Randi [our very own Lefty, Ann Coulter] and others. The party line goes something like this. We have free speech and he/she is just expressing her opinion.

There are still some brave souls who call in and protest or just to say they will never listen to AAR or buy from their sponsors again, but it is futile - just gives Our Liberal Coulter/Limbaugh someone else to deride.

One of the most harmful women in this campaign has always been Arianna Huffington, who has led the hate parade against HRC from her first blog post. Of course she'd make room for racial hatred and threats from Spike or any other BO supporter.

CognitiveDissonance said...

"...they landed on 3rd base and thought that they got a triple."

Shainzona, that was originally spoken by former Governor Anne Richards about George Bush about his privileged upbringing. Anne was a good friend of Hillary, by the way.

chinaberry turtle, I'm also disturbed by that meme and the conscious attempt to force blacks into a bunker mentality around Obama. This is really dangerous stuff, as it is definitely making race relations worse, not better. Ironic, since Obama was supposed to be post-racial and bring us all together. From what I've seen of his campaign, it has done exactly the opposite, and that angers me. It also seems to be backfiring, as Obama has lost more and more of the white vote with every primary. It's going to get to the point where he gets none at all. I'm especially interested in Pennsylvania because it will be the first primary since the Wright tapes surfaced.

What is so crazy about all this is that Obama does not have the background and history of AA's in this country. He basically had a privileged upbringing, mostly overseas. Then he spent a lot of years in Hawaii, where there is an entirely different dynamic. And yet he presumes to speak for all AA's.

Big Bear's Alpha Mama said...

Don't ya just love the way the media and obamabots lump Bill's presidency and Hillary in one breath. As if she was sitting in the oval office making if it was HER term in office. And if that is the mindset,all I have to say is bring her back because What part of the Clinton years did you not like...The PEACE or the PRO$PERITY???

Pie Hole said...

Anglachel, This is the post I've been waiting for since the onset of the whole Obama "media darling" argument. In that camp, I believe, there are some who are misguided and others who are intentionally misleading.

I am so appreciative of all the eloquent comments in support of your observations.

You've captured it so succinctly: "the nastier the media gets toward her, the more people rally to her side".

There is a looming PRECEDENT for this phenomenon. Namely, Bill Clinton and his continual rise in public support (high of 73%) throughout the impeachment process. The more the GOP and the media bashed him, the more popular he became with the populace. (He left office with a 65% approval rating; the highest of any outgoing President since polling began in 1937.)

In short, WJC's negative press was so blatantly unfair, it produced a POSITIVE INVERSE EFFECT on his approval ratings (as it now does for Hillary). The history of media attacks on the Clinton's has also produced an IMMUNIZING EFFECT. Meaning that the prior pattern of unfairness has led the public to be automatically suspicious of any new attack.

Hillary trusts the public because she knows we will not buy into any more extreme media malpractice against the Clintons. This faith gives her the confidence, and the will, to fight fearlessly in the face of increased adversity - not just in the primary, but in the General Election, and in the White House thereafter.

What more could we ask for?

gendergappers said...

COGDIS - The phrase Shainzona used : "...they landed on 3rd base and thought that they got a triple." came as part of a post I made to this blog a little while ago. Shainzona asked if she could use it and I agreed that she could. So if there is an error involved here, it is mine not hers.

What I wrote was referring to women/girls and I began by writing something like this: "paraphrasing, they find themselves on third base in their position or profession and think they hit a triple." In my haste, I neglected to type in Anne's name after the word "paraphrasing", My bad, perhaps it deserved a footnote as well, but I've noticed we all get a bit sloppy when blogging.

As you wrote, Anne Richards spoke in ref to Bush, that he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. My paraphrasing of it included specific words to refer to my subject that were not in Anne's quote which is why I prefaced it with the word, "paraphrasing".

Anne Richards is the "late", Gov of Texas. She died several years ago. She is also remembered for saying of daddy Bush: "Poor George... he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Interestingly, Martha Zollar titled a piece criticizing BO with that phrase last year and pointing up his lies and misspeaks.

Pie Hole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pie Hole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarana said...

Anglachel et al,
In regards to the "progressive" bloggers' inability to examine their own subjectivity when praising Obama and/or demeaning HRC, I've taken to reading conservative analyses. I don't mean Fox, who some Dems now think of a friend--just wait, but the analysis coming out of the conservative (okay, right wing) think tanks. They don't have a dog in the race, as Bud White puts it, so they practice equal opportunity analysis on Obama and Clinton.

With that disclaimer, I highly recommend this piece on the Unknown Obama. I'd like to hear what you think of this. Maybe it's just me, but I'm really bored by the tit for tat of the Blogger Boyz and our Team Hillary. I'm hungry for intelligent analysis--which brings me to your blog, Anglachel. I thank you.
Here's the link--it's dense but worth it.

jangles said...

It is interesting in this dialogue that the clear dichotomy in perspective between Obamaites and Clintonites seems to hinge on the media darling perception. We see the beating up on Clinton and the passes to Obama as unfair, untrue and relentless, a true hate campaign. We believe that if Obama gets the nom, it will also become his turn to be shredded. They believe that everything said by the media about Clinton is true and well deserved and if she got the nom it would continue thru the GE and if elected throughout her presidency and they have like so had it with that. They further believe that Obama if he gets the nom will have this media cover thru the GE and through his presidency. There is reason for them to believe this; think about how long the media took to even look at Iraq as maybe not the best thing since sliced bread. Look how long it took for them to ask Bush any questions of any substance about anything he did. As I think about this, I can understand how they hare arrived at where they are even if I know they are there with no map and no compass and no clue about where they are. I have no doubt that Obama would get more push in a GE but I would not bet the farm that the love fest will be over. I have watched a few of McCranky's campaign events on c-span and clips on the media. He can be incredibly boring. He is still not getting the big bucks from traditional Republican donors who continue to be showering mostly Obama but also Hillary with their political dollars. While you all may be right and the media fest for Obama will end quickly if he gets the nom, I am not so sure. I think some of the MSM are truly in love with the guy; they are mesmerized; they are in show business and he is a great show man. Obama's rallies and events are "EVENTS"; they are exciting. There are all these young totally energized, adoring, and sexy bodies literally moving the movement. That kind of stuff attracts viewers; it sells newspapers; it has sponsors with big dollars grinning from ear to ear. Obama is not just a blank screen for everyone's dream to be projected, he is a cash cow. So I want to believe that the media darling is a myth with a rapidly approaching wake up call. But the polling data does not seem to reflect the shift I thought it would because of the Wright stuff---that has really surprised me. Yes, it has hurt; it has not gone away, but is it really adding up? No, Obama has not closed the deal even will all kinds of things going for him. But then Clinton has not closed the deal either and she has a lot going for her too. Without question, this is going to be a presidential race for the history books. Just wish we knew how it was going to turn out.

jacilyn said...

Sarana, I read your article, and I found it interesting. One thing that really caught my attention was: "The Senator may have figured out how to...appeal to their disenchantment by invoking the slogan of 'hope' and 'change'..."

This to me captures the essence of why I feel very uncomfortable with Obama.

It seems to me the Republican candidate always seeks to unite his supporters with what everyone loves (or wants to love). Clinton could be described as uniting her supporters with what we want (for instance universal health coverage). Obama seems to appeal to something that entails the opposite, a rejection - you have to be willing to damn America before you can rebuild it. He is uniting people by what they hate.

That to me is a scary proposition. No wonder it appears (to me at least) to be spiraling out of control.

You know that Spike Lee quote is very like something that was posted on Obama's web page (on the blogs section, so Obama can try to claim it was outside of his control - ! - but the Republicans will have gotten a screen shot of the page with the Obama header. The average voter won't buy that Obama has no ability to control what gets put under that header, no sirree). It was the same rhetoric, complete with a picture of (slave) shackles. I think a lot of people are wondering, how can this result be "unity" ??

janiscortese said...

Quick comment -- I'm not sure that "born on third and think they hit a triple" is quite right.

They are on first base -- along with all of their male contemporaries. They're young; they all start out on first base.

They haven't yet realized that their male colleagues are given secret rollerskates, while they are wearing as yet unnoticed ankle weights. They still think that with hard work, they'll see third base, too.

They've got some ugly lessons coming up. Especially if Hillary loses and they live in a world that is drunk off its ass on the heady delight of having completely fucked over the most powerful woman in politics.

regencyg said...

Janiscortese: They've got some ugly lessons coming up. Especially if Hillary loses and they live in a world that is drunk off its ass on the heady delight of having completely fucked over the most powerful woman in politics.

That'll last as long as it takes for the 527s to start rolling on out. Then, they'll realize that feminism wasn't just a movement--it was salvation for a generation, and they threw it out with their Starbucks cups and "Bros before Hos" ringer tees.

gendergappers said...

I must respectfully disagree with JANISCORTESE - "They are on first base -- along with all of their male contemporaries. They're young; they all start out on first base."

Many women of the Boomer generation and others who have obtained positions in mid management, for example, are hot to trot with BO. These women strongly work for him and are influential. They are on first base in their careers because of what their foremothers did but they think they hit a triple [this paraphrases Ann Richards].

It is not only young women who support him.

When their careers stall, it is only then that they may wake up and smell the coffee [this paraphrases another Ann - the late Ann Landers].

gendergappers said...

Oops, make that third base, not first.

Pie Hole said...

First, second and third base have always meant something very different to me. I have no idea what it means in baseball.

I'm loving all of this dialogue. Major thanks to Anglachel, plus special shout out to Palamino, Ellen, Sherry, and Shainzona. I have been nagging BTD for ages to get him to explain why he thinks Obama will maintain his so called "media-darling" stature in the GE.

QUESTION: I'm sure BTD has read this by now, but did anybody link this post over at Talk Left?

I had intended to, but didn't. There are a lot of great folks posting there who would appreciate this a lot. But, I just couldn't bear it if Anglachel's Journal got swarmed by the Lord of the Flies blogger boys. Is it beneficial to increase traffic even if it includes a viral strain?

Any other thoughts on this?

Anglachel said...

Please don't. I'm not trying to argue with BTD, but talk about an assumption, stated most constructively by him, about Obama's relationship with the press.


Shainzona said...

I hope Anglachel doesn't mind - but I try NEVER to mention the name of this site on certain other sites 'cause I also don't want it swarmed by Obamacrats. At MyDD they are now taking over diaries with their rants and the people I would like to "hear" from get lost in that shuffle.

I do, however, mention the source of these wonderful posts at Hillary-Friendly places. And I have seen some of my "friends" over here checking it out.

I'm sure they and others will find out what a special place this is.

Thanks to Anglachel and all who comment here. It helps me, a lot.


sas said...

This will never make the MSM so
PLEASE pass this little nugget on to all your friends and family. From Talkleft today:

Theme: Obama's words vs. actions, in context of his discredited oil ads in PA. Obama's ad says:

I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

Rooney: Obama says in his ad that he's never taken any money from oil companies. No one does, because it's illegal. Yet he has taken $213k from employees of oil companies. Two of his bundlers are top execs at oil companies. (See Newsweek on this or my earlier post.)

Obama sided with Dick Cheney in voting for Dick Cheney's energy bill -- the best bill that oil companies could buy. Hillary voted against the bill.