Understood. But the "media bias" stuff isn't made up out of thin air, either. Media can be biased and e-mails can be idiotic -- the two aren't mutually exclusive.
No, they aren't mutually exclusive. But the flogging of "bias" as a political issue leads to cynicism rather than criticism. The cynicism leads to a complete lack of source evaluation. And that lack leads otherwise sane people to give undue weight to **** that gets fed them through email, talk radio and BLOGS!
And the Obama smear emails are too numerous and stupid to mention. And I am in no way convinced that they all originate from folks on your end of the political spectrum.
Yes, because, unlike the Republican party and the conservative movement, the Clintons have been notable in their race-baiting.
Of course, since the Obama folks seem intent on raising the level of civility by calling 30-odd percent of the NH voters closet racist, I despair for the tone of our politics.
Yeah, that was a real shame there, and one of the reasons I was never really sold on the guy. And if you're willing to concede that's what The Great Uniter's campaign is up to right now in reverse, going into SC, we have nothing further to discuss.
Bill Clinton used an obscure rapper to make points to white people.
Barack Obama says Joe Lieberman's one of his mentors.
New politics, my eye.
There are serious 9th amendment grounds for this suit. They may not prevail -- in fact, I don't think they will -- but it's more than just nan-na-na-boo-boo politics. And politics ain't beanbag, son.
Serious 9th amendment grounds that only came up after the "wrong" candidate won the CWU endorsement, though, right? And couldn't you make that claim about any caucus process, really?
Come on, Fenian. At some point, you're going to have to admit that Hillary's campaign is slimier than hell.
Working to keep the vote down in at least two states now, and you're going to defend this ****? Come on, man.
Serious 9th amendment grounds that only came up after the "wrong" candidate won the CWU endorsement, though, right? And couldn't you make that claim about any caucus process, really?
Come on, Fenian. At some point, you're going to have to admit that Hillary's campaign is slimier than hell.
Working to keep the vote down in at least two states now, and you're going to defend this ****? Come on, man.
If the endorsement had gone the other way, would Obama have allowed the extra caucuses? Be honest. I hope he wouldn't have. And there are equal-protection questions about these special caucuses. As I said, they probably won't prevail, but they're there. And "suppressing the turnout in two states"? How? Where? God help the Magical Mystery Tour when it runs into actual voter-suppression experts and don't have the Hildebeast any more to keep the wingnuts at bay.
A former sitting president out on the campaign stump telling college students they shouldn't caucus.
That's suppressing turnout. It's bull****, it's wrong, and if you were a college student or if your son or daughter went to school in Iowa you'd think it was bull****, too. Hell, I bet you think it's bull**** right now.
Then the Obama campaign should stop acting like fainting virgins every time somebody plays actual politics. The guy got a walkover Senate win in Illinois and now, Jesus Mary, you talk about entitled. One win in Iowa and a week's worth of fawning press from a press corps hardwired to despise the other contender, and one primary loss starts these people raving like somebody stole the little red wagon. The only reason the Right has laid off is because they hate HRC more than they do almost anyone else. As soon as she's gone, it'll be bombs away, and all the reaching-across-the-aisles-we-are-one-nation bull**** isn't going to help.
Here's a liberal lawyer on the merits of the Nevada lawsuit.
So, to be perfectly clear, you're OK with Hillary Clinton trying to tamp down turnout in Iowa and Nevada among groups she doesn't think will support her?
Josh Marshall's take, for what it's worth... (emphasis mine)
Deserves Attention
Maybe there's a reason this isn't as beyond the pale as it looks. But I'm not seeing it.
The Nevada State Democratic party has set up nine at-large caucus locations on the Las Vegas strip for casino workers who might not otherwise be able to caucus on January 19th. Remember, because of the recent Culinary Workers Union endorsement of Barack Obama, casino workers are expected to vote heavily for him.
Now, the Nevada State Education Association (the state teachers' union), which is seen as supportive of Clinton though it has not formally endorsed her, is suing the Democratic party to prevent block those at-large caucuses from meeting on the grounds that similar arrangements have not been made for other Nevadans.
I don't know the particulars of how the Nevada caucuses are arranged. But the 'tell' is the fact that the teachers' union apparently didn't think this was a problem until Sen. Obama bagged the key union endorsement. When asked why the union had never approached the state party about this issue until Friday, union president Lynne Warne, tellingly replied, "We're approaching them now."
If there's one thing that's core to the modern Democratic party is that voter suppression tactics are always wrong. Much of the US Attorney purge scandal was at root about Republican voter suppression tactics. I suspect this is doubly wrong -- both in the sense that the suit is meritless on its face but certainly also in the sense that you don't decide how easy to make it for people to vote depending on who you think they're likely to vote for.
Please leave these shameful tactics to Republicans.
Late Update: Jeralyn at TalkLeft thinks there is some substantive merit to the suit. And in the abstract, she has a point. But following on the distinction I drew above, I think the timing tells the story.
well, if it actually hasn't come into question (which it has)...
perhaps because he isn't running on the issue? a la, say, huckabee?
perhaps because his supporters don't give a rat's patoot about holy war nonsense? like, say, a frightening percentage of republicans?
My half-sister is convinced that Obama's a Musilm. The fact that it's not in the newspapers but is in email forwards is, for her, just more proof that it's true.
