- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
The Democrat’s Presidential Primary Is Exposing Mainstream Media’s Selfish Agenda (and Barack won Texas; not Hillary)
For sometime now the Billary Clinton campaign has been complaining that mainstream media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton. But is this true? Lots of supporters from both the Clinton and Obama camps, have (at various points of this marathon) attacked the media treatment of their candidate; the Clintonistas in particular have gone to great lengths in trying to drive this point across. Comedians and comedy shows have lampooned their very complaints. And yet all mainstream media is doing is nothing short of pursuing their unaltruistic everyday agenda of: sensationalism and controversy-creation. It is not only about providing information for public dissemination and action; it is also about profits. Mainstream media likes to stir up the pot; they like to create controversy even where there wasn’t, or even when there isn’t. This sells computers, newspapers, books, magazines, et al. This brings high ratings relative to viewership, readership and listenership. It’s unfortunate but it is true. A political brouhaha is a gatekeeper’s orgasm. If they can’t find one, well, they fabricate it. That’s what they are doing right now with this so-called contest between Obama and the Clintons. They bend the truth to keep it alive. They twist the facts to perpetuate this media-farce. It is one big charade. It is slowly becoming a joke; eventually we will all laugh. Hopefully the joke won’t be on the obvious democratic nominee: Barack Obama. This unnecessary continuum isn’t funny; the ammo being provided for Republicans to use after Labor Day, could blow up in the faces of optimistic party-loyalists. Are they getting this? Mainstream media should be informing and educating the general public. It should be as honest and truthful as humanly possible; but is it? It should be an edification tool, not a vehicle used only for high ratings and big profits. It should be more civic-minded and less self-absorbed. Media’s status as the fourth estate didn’t come about accidentally. Political scholars have written countless dissertations about the importance of media in reifying our democratic ideals. Unfortunately, for political-idealists like myself, mainstream media often times leaves a lot to be desired; it is why I believe the political blogs have become so popular. With all the warts attached, political blogs have gotten real close to the true pulse of the polity; even more so than the framers of the constitution envisaged. I wanted to wait until after next Tuesday’s primary to write this, but since I am taking for granted that Barack Obama will win the Mississippi primary that day, I will go ahead with this column now. I expect Barack Obama to win the Wyoming caucus later today, if only because his campaign staff has an impressive record of bringing out caucus goers loyal to their cause; and also because I have heard from on the ground (where the boots are) that Obama has out-organized Clinton in this state; in a big way. His campaign has been on the ground here for quite some time now. But even if he loses the Wyoming caucus, that outcome has little bearing on what I want to say here; only 12 delegates are up for grabs; he will get his share no matter what. Last Tuesday night, mainstream media bandied about the story that Hillary Clinton had won Texas; but it wasn’t true. Responsible journalism would have necessitated qualifying the Texas call, given the partial results of Tuesday night; but they didn’t. Texas has a two step contest- a primary and a caucus- much like a few other states. And now the Texas democrats have given a preliminary account of both the primary and caucus results, which shows that overall: Obama won at least three more delegates than she did. And also, that he won at least 100,000 more votes when both contests are combined. She won the primary in the day and he won the caucus in the night. This is a fact, and yet mainstream media perpetuates the myth that Hillary won Texas. What could be their motivation here? Think about this as you sip your latte today, folks. By all objective measures Billary Clinton lost Texas. The word was that Texas was their last stand. It doesn’t end there. In California, the official results of the Super-Tuesday primary shows that Obama gained a net of 8 delegates in the recount (he picked up four subtracted from her total). Yes, she won California and came away with more delegates; but her total was overestimated. Further, in auditing the primaries and caucuses already official, Obama’s pledged delegate lead widens. In the few (remember some contests are still incomplete since there are other steps left) that remain unofficial, preliminary assessments show a similar pattern upon review. It still doesn’t end there. Mainstream media keeps reporting that Obama won eleven straight contests in February; fact is: he won more than that. They know that it is darn near impossible (mathematically) for Billary to get to the convention with more pledged delegates than Obama, but they won’t report that, since it dampens audience enthusiasm for their needed horse race scenario. Plus it helps to enable Billary’s presidential addiction, which in itself is a story worth maintaining (for them). They know that he will win more caucuses and more primaries in total- than she does- by the end of this process. This is a fact. They know that it is again highly improbable for her to surpass his vote total, since he is presently close to 750,000 votes ahead (once Florida and Michigan is left out of course). They know that if you include in the count, all the foreign contests already completed, the win column widens in Obama’s favor. Mainstream media has all of this information at their fingertips. They choose to ignore various aspects of the truth. Furthermore, they have polls out of North Carolina, and projections out of Mississippi, showing that he will stomp her in those two primaries; knowing fully well that she must win at least two of out of every three of the dwindling delegates that remain, to attain what will be in his pledged delegate total range. They also know that the way the pledged delegates are collected in this contest this year, he will do well in Pennsylvania (another firewall state for Billary- like Texas was-lol), even if she wins by more than 10 percentage points. Look, Super-Tuesday was held out by mainstream media as a good day for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the truth was she came out of that day down many delegates, and has been losing more ground ever since. Her supposed “big wins” last Tuesday will net her less than ten pledged delegates in plurality. That mainstream media has allowed Billary to move the goalpost after each big primary day is shameful. Now her campaign talks about super-delegates, and momentum, and big states (selectively of course, as if other states don’t matter), and who is best suited to withstand the Republican’s attack-machine, and who is or isn’t ready to lead from day one, and who should answer the phone at 3:00 am, and all the other bullshit that obfuscates the fact: contemporary presidential nominations are won by winning more primaries, more caucuses and more pledged delegates than your competitors. That’s it; there is no other criterion. Even the super-delegates know this. Even the question of winning a larger popular vote total is moot; but even here Obama comes out ahead. In desperation, Billary is now considering a do-over in Michigan and Florida, after unethically calling for those delegates to be seated from those window-dressing contests earlier. Don’t they know that Michigan was won by Jesse Jackson? And if Jesse won it then, what do you think Obama will do now? And yet, even if she won both of them it won’t matter much, since Obama will pick up delegates either which way. For Clinton to get this nomination, she will have to get more than two-thirds of the super-delegates to vote her way at the convention; is that even realistic a proposition? The party will be destroyed if these people reward the loser: the gold medal. Yes, the logistics are in place; but the feasibility isn’t. Already, Obama has over a quarter of the super-delegates locked down (with another fifty stashed for a rainy day). Does anyone with all their marbles in place, actually think that the super delegates will overrule the expressed will and intent of the voter after Bush v. Gore of 2001? Look, as I have said many times before, Obama will end up win more wins and more pledged delegates than she. Case closed. Mainstream media knows this, but their main objective here is to selfishly facilitate the media intensity surrounding the pseudo-competitive aspects of this primary. It sells. It brings in profits. I am sure that Billary Clinton and their high-priced team of money-burners also know the facts. Maybe Hillary is trying to “bogard” her way onto the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee; or maybe she is trying to bloody up Obama, so that McCain will come along and pick up the pieces in November; giving her an opportunity to come back in four years? Whatever her reason for perpetuating this charade-especially after losing her firewall state of Texas- mainstream media shouldn’t be playing along; they should be reporting the facts even if interest wanes. They should start telling the truth about Texas: Barack Obama won the state; not Hillary Clinton. Look, Obama has already doubled her up in victories, and by the time we all get to Phoenix (as the song says) and then Denver for the convention: the spread will be wider. Maybe then she will be a believer and stop this delusionary behavior. Stay tuned-in folks; as someone said when the big bad bear bit off a large part of the dog’s tail: “it won’t be long now”. You say Obama got 100,00 more votes in Texas, but you are counting votes twice. In order to vote in the caucus, one had to vote in the primary, so there were no new votes. Hillary got the most votes in the primary. While you are correct that Obama got the most delgates in Texas, and delegates are what counts, this is analalous to Bush beating Gore after losing the popular vote by 500,000. It's a technical victory without moral authority. However, for purposes of headlines, and given the result itself was not dispositive of who won the nomination, the media was going to declare as the winner the one who got the most votes. Anyway, the text of nearly every story made it clear that the caucus went the other way, and that Hillary got no gain. Since the strongest pillar of the Obama argument that the super-delegates should deliver him the nomination is that he is the choice of the voters, technicalites about less than democratic rules not withstanding, I would not undermine that argument by claiming a victory where the people spoke otherwise. Leave that argument for the Clintons
....it's do it once. And, as you so astutely point out, it's no sure thing for Clinton. Obama should offer to pay 50% of the costs, and dare Clinton to ante up as well; or he should offer to pay more. He'll raise it. Any other strategy wil make him look afaid of these people, and he must carry at least one of these states in November, or he's toast.  To the first commenter: what are you saying? Award Hillary the nomination? Because of what? The rationale for Barack getting the nod from the super delegates is firmly entrenched in the pillars of the process: more primary wins, more caucus wins, more votes and more pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Michigan were re-run it doesn't change the numbers by much. This is not about winner take all in each state.
Rock: Most of the super delegates will vote for the the candidate with the most regular delegates won, the most state won, the most popular votes won. That will be Senator Obama. Case closed. The super delegates that vote for Hillary Clinton are only going to vote for at of fear of retribution. Don't forget she will still be a power house in the Senate. They would not want to feel her fury if they didn't vote for her. Don't forget she's great at running a fear campaign. Those super delegates in the New York fear her tremendously. They don't want to piss her off, when they have to live with her in Washington. Mr. Obama will never ask her to be on the ticket, he's his own person & I don't think will bend in that regard. She will be a lightening rod for the Republicans, and the focus of the election will be on her & not on the issues so important to the country that Mr. Obama has been focusing on. I say his VP will be John Edwards.
Can't you read. I said Hillary got more votes inn Texas; nothing more or less. You can say Obama won more delegates, but to say he got more votes would make you either a liar of ignorant. That's all i said. But, you ignored my point, refused to answer it,and turned it into something I did not say. Which is what you always do wheile your army of "STUDENTS" attacks anyone who dares to disagree as racist or jealous. Please stop this. We know it is you. And, getting back to my very minor point, all i said is that Obama has the moral authority to get the votres of the super-delegates because he has more votes. It is the Clinotonites who want to use a formula other than what the voters want. I then added that engaging in the same sort of sophistry by saying that the candidate who got the most votes lost (and NO ONE one who voted in the caucusses is an additional voters), then you are playing Clintonite games. Why do this? Why give the impression that the supporters of both candidates care nothing about anything but winning? Admit she won, congratulate her, abd go onto to kick her ass. But stop being such a pompous blowhard.
I have laid off your prostelytizing for Obama at Hilary's expense.
But to suggest that Obama won TX is ridiculous and a bit hypocritical. Hilary won the popular vote. And btw, she overwehelmingly won the popular vote of thise who did not vote early...since Obama had a lead of 140,000 among such voters.
SO, please try to stay consistent, my friend. LEW: please get your facts straight. Clinton lost TEXAS. Obama got more TOTAL votes and more delegates then she did, based on both the primary and caucus results. If you dispute this, then let's wager some money on what I have claimed here.
Now where do you get off calling me names? You jumped on my column from the git go. You said: "what rubbish". Still, I tried to engage you in a civil manner. It is always easier to tear down rather than build up; I don't see you writing the friggin columns fool. This is the envious (and pronbably racist)stuff that's so easy to discern. Critique the column and that's fine, but to castigate it as "rubbish", when you obviously cannot do better; well that speaks for itself and demonstrates what and who you are as a non-human. Why can't you just ignore my columns and stop reading what I write? That way you don't have to comment and make an ass of yourself. Simple answer: my columns fascinate you. CLINTON LOST TEXAS. VOTERS HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE. You don't make the rules. If they voted twice its because those were the rules. Their votes were counted twice; delegates were rewarded based on BOTH votes. Are you so simple that you cannot even understand something as basic as that. About my students: they are free to do whatever they want. I don't need anyone to fight my battles; I can do that all by myself. I own up to what I write and I put my name, reputation, credibility and face behind all my columns. I am right here and all you assholes know where I am, and how to get me, find me or contact me. Anytime you want a piece of the ROCK apart from hiding behind your cowardly anonymous mask then let's get it on. The fact is that you all who constantly attack me here, are nothing but a bunch of cowards. Ask a simple question of yourself: what could be wrong with your life that you have to constantly come on this site to attempt to terrorize me? You are a pathetic fool; get a friggin life. You seem to possess a kindergarden level of education and you dare try to humiliate me on my facts and analysis? PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK. How dare you suggest that I am ignorant; or that I am a liar? Next you and your cronies will say that I started this shit (again). And some of you wonder why I leave my comment section closed sometimes. DON'T READ MY COLUMN IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING.
ROCK your columns brings out the worst in the vultures and player haters. You must be doing something right. The stalkers come out at night.
Professor Hackshaw never starts these fights here. It is the venom from warped minds refusing to accept his talent and his genius. Why do so many of you stay quiet when this happens.
Hmm, a Rock column that is well written, thought out and reasonable. It's good to have the real Rock Hackshaw back instead of the emotional wreck that's been impostering under your name in the last couple of months. Although I still disagree with your candidate and with some of your arguments, I will agree that unfortunately Obama won Texas due to his increased delegate count. Even though the Texas primary system is completely messed up, Obama ended up with more delegates than Clinton, which just like electoral votes, is what matters in the end. In 2000, stipulating Florida didn't happen, BUSH WON THE ELECTION BUT, in 2000 GORE GOT MORE VOTES Now, skip to 2008, substitute Bush for Obama, substitue Gore for Hillary. You can say Obama won Texas, and you would be correct, and you are. But you can't say he got more votes, unless you want to redefine what a vote is. You make a good argument, then you take it a bridge to far. And if anyone questions it, you fly into an undifnified arange and call out your underground army of the night. Are you such a partisan, of Obama and of yourself, that you will grab any argument, no matter what the quality, when you are already possessed of means sufifcient? Rock, stick to any maeans necessary. Your whole argument meant about Obama getting more votes, meaning the votes of more individuals, is a a lie. Why do you persist in questioning the inteleliggence sanity and integrity of those who correct you when they find you've distorted the facts?
Oh, and those rules are what allows a candidate who's gotten less votes to "steal"the nomination. In order to prevent his, it helps to have the moral high ground. Saying that the end of the day you got more votes around the country is taking the moral high ground, qand is a compelling urgument to the super-delegates. Using some manipulation to redefine democracy is Clintonian, Rock, I suppose you say that Obama got "more" votes in Texas. As Bill Clinton, would note, it just depends on your definition of what more is. Better suggestion, suck it up. He's winning and its getting almost insurmountable. Stop clouding the issue; that's Hillary's job. The states where they allow both prinmary elections and caucuses also allow voters to participate twice. Some hold different events on different days and Texas holds both events the same day. The voters are counted TWICE. They are OFFICIALLY recorded and counted twice (primary and caucus). These are the facts.When the authorities make their final report they dont subtract between primary and caucus voters. This is such a silly argument that I am amazed at the intensity of the anon who started this attack on me with this unnecessary name calling. As for Wonk and JP of this blog: I ill continue to ignore you. I find you both despicably dishonest intellectually, so please don't read my columns and don't try to draw me in to comments or dialogue with you. I will continue to ignore you guys. So JP I don't give a damn that you find my writing back to some fucking standard you set. I don't write for your judgement. Your column of last month was a lying piece of crap meant to hurt me in many ways>. I wish you would show yourself and stop hiding behind initials you cowaard. If it was back in the old days, I could challenge you to a duel with guns or swords and to the death. You actually fooled a lot of people for a minute who actually believed your exagggerations, embellishments and outright lies. there is no excuse for that. In fact you are even worse than WONK.
I have followed Ben's request to be polite to you and stayed out of this argument entirely. You were just incapable of giving me the same curtosy. You owe me and Ben Smith apologies.
For the record I completely reject his comparison. I always argued logically and never attacked him personally. I was never a coward--his main reason for calling me a coward was that I didn't use my real name. Well, now I do and stand by EVERYTHING I ever wrote. I love the idea that I "drew him in" by legitimate criticism. Well, sir you showed your true colors today. You are playing semantic games. She won the primary, she got more votes. No one could vote in the caucus who did not vote in the primary. So she was the choice of more voters. You can spin it anyway you want, but that is the case. If I were you I'd abadon this argument. Isn't winning more delgates enough without veering off into deception? Isn't changing the focus from who the voters chose a Clintonite trick? You don't need to make this argument Rock, your guy is ahead and is going to stay that way. You are only helping to lay the seeds for those who want to distort the truth to pick a different winner.
When are you people going to realize that Prof. Rock Hackshaw's shit don't stink? He walks on water. He turns wine into water, and then walks on it, I mean, you know what I mean. He predicted that Obama would win New Hampshire, when the entire mainstream media, which he hates said the same thing! I have a man-crush on Professor Rock. Leave him alone! Much love. Rock, what absurd spin. He got more votes? He got more of his supportrs to vote a SECOND time at night. To participate in the caucus you had to vote in the primary. It has been argued, and I think realistically, that the demographic of the Obama voter---higher educated, younger, students---makes it easier for Obama voters to participate in the lengthy complicated caucus process than the Clinton voter ---poorer, working class. Texas's ridiculous process notwithstanding, when counting people's votes ONCE, Clinton was the CLEAR winner. No Rock Hackshaw spin oculd change THAT. but take heart...he DId win Wyoming. Yo RockLover. Why you got a hate on such a great man as Rock Hackshaw? Rock Hackshaw will be remembered as one of the greatest political minds of twenty-first century. His predictions about Barack Obama prove he is the smartest person to ever blog on any site ever. Rock Hackshaw will be cloned to preserve his greatness and so that future generations will have his wisdom forever. You should be tarred and feather for hating on Future Secretary of State Rock Hackshaw.
Prof. Rock why they can't all just see how great you iz like we does? LEW: I am amazed that you will take such a position devoid of logic. The rules in Texas were that you could vote twice. In the primary (early voting and day time of election day) your vote is weighted twice as high as your vote in the caucus (night); since the primary awarded two thirds of the pledged delegates, and the caucus awarded one-third of the pledged delegates. BOTH VOTES COUNTED; THEY WERE BOTH IMPORTANT DESPITE THE WEIGHT. Yes, HRC won the primary vote; and yes, she collected delegates awarded thus, based on the formula and rules. Then she lost the caucus votes and got a similar deal. When it was all over OBAMA won more delegates. He also had a higher vote aggregate when both primary and caucus were combined as per the rules and as per the LEGALITIES. SO LEW: PLEASE TELL ME WHO WON TEXAS? I await your brilliant answer to this question. Respectfully submitted.
What you did coming out was courageous and admirable; but what you have done to me here over the past three years, I cannot easily forgive. Some of your objectives were to undermine, ridicule, savage and discredit me (too many times). You owe me an apology. And until you do that I will never forgive you. So you could go to hell. I have no respect for you and your opinions thus I have disengaged.
The legality is that more individual human beings in Texas casted vote or votes for Hillary than Obama. Do the math! Now tell me which candidate had more human beings cast a vote or votes for them. Will you have the integrity to admit that more living breathing human beings cast a vote or votes for Hillary in Texas? Your pathetic rationalizations sound like nothing so much as Bill Clinton trying to define the definaition of what is is. They would sound like desparation is your guy wasn't ahead. Since he is, why is this dissembling even necessary? We're not going to impeach you from the blog world. The next step is to buy a cigar and find a zaftig young Jewish girl . We hear you have one already picked out.
You are trying to DELIBERATELY miss the point. In general,a human equals one vote, but in Texas that was not the case, since a human could have voted twice. In the Texas primary things were different, since any human could have voted twice, and in so doing have the votes be dealt with on an individual basis each time cast; with one vote weighing more than the other (x2). You cannot seperate the primary from the caucus; combined they become the contest for the Texas delegates. Why do you think Lew can't come back with an answer? Because the votes and the humans are not the same legally in this instance: thus Barack got more votes than Hillary. Furthermore; thus Barack got more delegates than Hillary. And finally (logically; except for Nevada): thus Barack won Texas. It was not (and still is not) a question of who got more humans; it was who got more votes. And if you really want to get technical: how do you know that some people who loved both candidates, didn't vote for Hillary in the day, then Barack in the night? So you can't even accurately argue your point that she got more humans to vote for her in Texas. Hillary lost Texas on the delegate front and on the vote front. PERIOD. This discussion isn't worth the time and effort; it only shows the world that the level of discourse here is low. Look; LEW really surprised me with this one; really.
Let sleeping dogs, lie. Dear Room 8 readers: At Ben Smith's request I have been polite and not done anything to make Room 8 about me and Rock. Unfortunately, the King of Self Victimization, Rock Hackshaw, must have missed the drama. I have been polite since Ben's "plea" and today decided enough people, including a member of the NY City Council were arguing with Rock, so I stayed out of it. So what does he do? Gratuitiously goes out of his way to trash talk me in violation of Ben's "Plea." He had to make it about me, didn't he? His poor hurt feelings for all those arguments I won going after the holes in his arguments, pointing out when he responded selectively or tried to change the subject, or pointing out when he called criticism "attack." I guess he missed me. For the record, none of my "objectives were to undermine, ridicule, savage and discredit" him. Just to point out when I disagreed, or saw flaws in his arguments and why. I often agreed with him, something no one ever gives me credit for. If I was just here to go after him, why would I do that? So I don't know why he saw fit to bring me into this, but as far as I'm concerned, unless I get an apology, the truce was called by Ben and blatently broken by Rock. Please let it be known that I played by the rules and he didn't. Oh well, it was actually kind of pleasant while it lasted. Too bad he had to go and ruin it. But it was him that woke up the sleeping dog and unless I get that apology, I will stay very much awake. --Matthew W. Carlin, a/k/a EnWhySeaWonk "And finally (logically; except for Nevada): thus Barack won Texas. It was not (and still is not) a question of who got more humans; it was who got more votes. And if you really want to get technical: how do you know that some people who loved both candidates, didn't vote for Hillary in the day, then Barack in the night? So you can't even accurately argue your point that she got more humans to vote for her in Texas." Right, Bill-Rock; and blow jobs don't count as sex. Please, explain how cum all othose voters with split-hearts liked Hillary in the day, and Obama at night. Was it a light-dark thang? He won. Bush won in 2000, but more people still voted for Hillary. Even in your stupid light/dark theory more people voted for Hillary, because the entire vote pool voted in the rpimary and Hillary got more votes. You are so intelectually dishonest that the word intellectual is an insult to the intelect!!
Look at the states Obama has won. Mainly red states. Should he go against McCain, he will lose those states. Hillary has won in the states that would allow her a chance to win in November. The Republican machine has won another one. The Archie Bunkers out there haven't been heard from yet. Obama brings no one with him with experience to run a government...he admited himself that he will "learn on the job." Sorry, I do not want another lost presidency the likes of the Carter years nor do I want to see a re-run of what New Yorkers have experienced under Spitzer. Hillary is the only person that can work with a Congress that has to remain "moderate" to please people back home and keep their seats and brings experienced individuals to the table to help run the government. Otherwise it is McCain all the way, baby!
You can do five things for me: (1) Read my articles and don't comment because that's what I will do to your columns (unless you attack me as you usually do-which will bring a response). (2) Don't read my articles so that you won't have to comment (which I am considering as it relates to you). (3) Meet me in a phone booth some where for the ass-kicking I would give you if I ever see you, for all the attacks on me over the years; and for your vicious and inhumane agenda that you (and your recruits) have tried to execute here. (4) STFU. One necessary act doesn't make you brave. You still have some ways to go to prove to me you are not a friggin coward. (5) An unambiguous apology without qualification. I am VIRGO born; you don't mess with me and think I forgive that easily. I don't.
It is beeter to stay silent and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. You don't get it do you? I can't waste time on fools. Sorry; I have to move on. You miust have failed LOGIC in College (if you ever did attend). The "entire vote pool" voted in BOTH primary and caucus combined; not just the primary alone.
Wow. I gotta take these out of order. Easy ones first. 1. Sorry, no. I tried that yesterday and what did you do? Trash talked me with no provocation! Why Rock? Why did you do that? You begged me to leave you alone so many times and when I did, you couldn't resist bringing me back in. Tsk Tsk Tsk. You brought this one upon yourself. 2. No. 4. No. 5. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. LOL, ROTFL, LMAO. 3. Although there's no such thing as a phone booth anymore (1975 called, it wants its threat of violence back), wow. You say someone on here failed logic and your come back to me is a threat of violence? that's the ultimate fallacy. You know what Rock, pick a time and a place. If you do, I will show up. But here are the very fair, I think, caveats: the time and place must be reasonable (i.e., not 3:00AM or on a holiday and not 20 blocks from the nearest subway stop, I live in Williamsburg and you're in Queens, right? So the City seems right. And, I work M-F 9:30-6:30, so not then), it must be public and it must be listed on Room 8 with at least 5 day's notice. I am a pacifist so the fight will be very quick (the only fight you will even win with me is a physical one). But I'll show up. We'll see who the coward is. Will you actually pick a reasonable place and time, post it on Room 8 and show up? Because I will be there if you do. And who will the coward be if you really do beat me up, as I don't even try to defend myself? It's really easy to pretend to be brave in a blog, but you've called me a coward all these years and now I am calling you out. Put your fucking money where your fucking mouth is. Is your threat as empty as your rhetoric often is? I think it is. Ben Smith is an excellent example of the pro-Hillary bias on the sites that have positioned themselves as respectable, neutral outlets. This is a site that managed to sponosr a Democratic debate, and that has had incredible access to the candidates. Yet, his blog displays a consistent Pro-Hillary and Anti-Obama tone that is really just a few degrees shy of Taylor Marsh territory. Remember that Mr. Smith broke the "story" of the tenuous Ayers-Obama ties. Mr. Smith's shameless Hillary-mongering is in abundant evidence every single day. Complaints and letters to the editors have only just now begun to make any difference, largely as a resultof this flap: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=9&threadid=464646 At least it shows that the editors aren't completely insensitive to readers' response. I encourage everyone to write to the editors and demand a new Democratic blogger at Politico. You can do so here: http://www.politico.com/aboutus/ ...or maybe Vince McMahon! What an exchange between Rock & Wonk! Although it may be somewhat entertaining, Rock & Wonk should be careful not to memorialize threats which, even if you delete them now, will be preserved in the caches of servers and PC until the end of time. Anyway, I enjoyed reading Rock's column, even if I'm not smart enough (or have enough time) to fully understand Texas' primary/caucus system. My only question is this: Is it true that Clinton cannot, under any circumstance, "catch" Obama in the race for pledged delegates and/or votes? Is there a chance that she can narrow the gap between them to the point that she could then argue for the support of the uncommitted superdelegates? Maybe I missed that discussion in an earlier thread...
It would seem that Ben Smith's endorsement violates not only a fundamental tenet of journalism, but his company's own mission statement. While it is true that today's journalist has blurred the line between "voice and advocacy," an endorsement by a political writer goes too far. Isn't Ben Smith's coverage, and by extension, Politico.com's, now tainted? Well, at least it's abundantly clear why some media outlets would continue to perpetuate the existence of a Clinton-Obama horserace... Anybody actually see a clip of Ben Smith's "endorsement" on CNN?
This was vetted last week. Ben never endorsed anyone. This was started by a vicious attacker of Ben's columns on Politico. When confronted, the person provided no proof. However people jumped on it. Where have we seen this before?
What most HONEST people in mainstream media has known for some time now is the fact that Hillary has no chance- given the formula, trends, contemporary political realities, and history of this contest so far- to catch Obama in pledged delegates. After this coming Tuesday (Miss.) she can only do this by winning about 75% of the vote the rest of the way. That's how humongous a task it has been since Super Tuesday; and it got worse with each primary and each caucus he subsequently won. Go back to my "Waterloo" column and all the others since. I have been making the case for many weeks now. OBAMA WON TEXAS.
When black men scream that racism is alive and kicking, white men say what "self victimization". You will never get it. You don't want to get it.
Did you have to join this last battle Wonk? It is obvious that Hackshaw is frustrated by what he percieves as the constant attacks by whites on this blog. Right or wrong that must be how he feels. Why can't you be sensitive to this?
Rock Hackshaw is still the best writer on this site and that's what the fuss is all about. How can a black man be so informed and so connected? How can a black man be so terrific in his analysis? It is about racism more than it is about envy and jealousy. It's the history of black and white being played out on this website.
I stayed out of it. HE BROUGHT ME INTO IT BY TRASH TALKING ME. Now he's threatened violence and I've called his bluff. Yo Prof. Rock, let me kick Wonk's ass for you. You're golden foot is too good for his sorry ass. What people don't understand is that Rock Hackshaw is a prophet, he foretold the coming of Barack Obama. Anyone who disagrees with him, especially WONK, are simply ignorant pleebians who should be ignored. WONK should also be banned from this site for his disrespect of the great Rock Hackshaw. He is jealous of Rock's incredible success as a lecturer at a small college. Mr. Hackshaw you should close your pieces to comments again. They are near-godlike perfection, why bother even listening to people who will ignorantly disagree with you? ...it's time to switch topics? Or are you too busy blogging to read the latest news?
Another good article from Rock gets lost in the sniping thread. For what? Such a waste. You are losing people here.
Rock lectures at MIM, College of New Rochelle, BMCC, BCC and Brooklyn College Graduate Program. Is Brooklyn College a "small college"? You player haters have sad sorry lives I feel. Envy is a weakness. Go improve yourself before you spread these lies. Do what he did with his life then talk.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
You say Obama got 100,00 more votes in Texas, but you are counting votes twice. In order to vote in the caucus, one had to vote in the primary, so there were no new votes. Hillary got the most votes in the primary.
While you are correct that Obama got the most delgates in Texas, and delegates are what counts, this is analalous to Bush beating Gore after losing the popular vote by 500,000. It's a technical victory without moral authority.
However, for purposes of headlines, and given the result itself was not dispositive of who won the nomination, the media was going to declare as the winner the one who got the most votes. Anyway, the text of nearly every story made it clear that the caucus went the other way, and that Hillary got no gain.
Since the strongest pillar of the Obama argument that the super-delegates should deliver him the nomination is that he is the choice of the voters, technicalites about less than democratic rules not withstanding, I would not undermine that argument by claiming a victory where the people spoke otherwise.
Leave that argument for the Clintons