View Full Version : Hillary's right! No, seriously!
DocWagon
08-26-2008, 20:22
Offered without further comment:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/08/3_am_spot_reviv.html
I love this ad and she is speaking the truth!! The Dems are hating each other tonight, can't wait to see all the Hillary signs pop up!! The media is trying to point the hate Mcain every chance they get.:D Down with the gun haters club!!!
The Dems are hating each other tonight, can't wait to see all the Hillary signs pop up!!
Did you get satisfaction? :D
I didn't think Hillary's speech was very good, but it doesn't look like we're going to see the open disunity that some are hoping for.
It is raining though ...
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/barack_obama_rain_man.html
I can't wait for the ads that use words uttered by Joe Biden against Obama, even if they're not his own words.
Michelle Obama was not happy with the speach! You could see the hate in her face when Hill was getting in her little digs here and there.:D She was campaigning for herself and making it about her with a "vote for Obama" at the end.:D The gun haters are still divided, they will still be conquered!
You could see the hate in her face when Hill was getting in her little digs here and there.:D
You could? I didn't. I don't even know what "little digs" you're referring to. Did you see the same speech?
She was campaigning for herself and making it about her ...
But of course. She did what was required, and not a bit more.
I am an American....questioning where he was born.
I am qualified.... nuff said.
Keep running when the dogs are on your trail....don't know why she said.
I have campaigned in all 50 state..... referring to his 52.
Traveling around talking to Americans of all walks of life....not people of Berlin.
I sure there were others they have been bickering about that she squeezed in. The camera panned to Michelle and you could tell she knew the score on the digs!!:D
You could? I didn't. I don't even know what "little digs" you're referring to. Did you see the same speech?That depends which network's broadcast you were watching.
That depends which network's broadcast you were watching.
Sure, if you were watching Fox, there's no telling what they might have done to the feed:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
"Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.
Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News and the original photo suggests that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. "
I am an American....questioning where he was born.
I am qualified.... nuff said.
Keep running when the dogs are on your trail....don't know why she said.
I have campaigned in all 50 state..... referring to his 52.
Traveling around talking to Americans of all walks of life....not people of Berlin.
I sure there were others they have been bickering about that she squeezed in. The camera panned to Michelle and you could tell she knew the score on the digs!!:D
Wow, those were subtle digs, if they were even meant as digs at all. You didn't go through the transcript with a fine tooth comb to find those did you?
But I did think Hillary's speech was not pro-Obama at all. Instead, it was pro-some-generic-Democratic-candidate - indeed, any Democratic candidate. She was more specific about Michelle, in fact, than Barack. She failed to say anything about McCain's usurping of her primary campaign quotes. And she failed to note that Obama just happened to get that "speech" right, which Clinton, who actually had a vote on the matter, got wrong. Well, no surprise there; Hillary is never wrong. Yes, she was quite pleased to leave the impression with all those listeners that it really should be her accepting the nomination, never mind the will of the voters and the party rules on state primary dates. There are still some PUMAs stomping their feet and petulantly bemoaning their lost opportunity, but all but a few of them will come around by November. They just need a little reminding that John McCain is running as a Republican, and how narrow the special interests that have completely taken over today's GOP really are. It's funny, in a sick way, to hear someone like Mary Matalin say, in all apparent seriousness, that the Democrats are trying to stifle dissent at their convention. When's the last time you saw any real dissent within the Republican party? It's all orchestrated, and has been ever since 1968, when the Nixon campaign realized that a convention could just be free air time, a several nights long commercial for the party. Contrasted with the debacle in Chicago it's no wonder Nixon won. That he only won by the slimmest of margins is indicative of what a bad candidate he really was, as time proved.
If McCain does get elected, he should just put a going out of business sale sign on the front fence of the white house. The Bush administration has already been auctioning off America's national interests to the highest bidders for 8 years; McCain may as well make it official.
Forget citizenship; we'll be worker-bees and consumers. Forget the United States of America; we'll be living in the United Corporations of America, and what was once a great nation of, by, and for the people, will become an amalgam of legal fictions operated by tiny minorities of elites. Because too many of us stupidly sat by and let it happen. They'll reward our docility by making sure we can afford extra goodies for a few years, so we neither notice nor complain about what they've done. And then it would be too late.
Check this out: How much condemnation would we be seeing of Barack Obama from the Fox noise machine, et al, if Obama had, say, a highly paid German lobbyist advising him on foreign policy? This broke two weeks ago, yet we see next to nothing about this from the supposedly pro-Obama MSM. Why is that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202932.html
August 13, 2008
Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.
The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.
The McCain campaign said Georgia's lobbying contract with Orion Strategies had no bearing on the candidate's decision to speak with President Mikheil Saakashvili and did not influence his statement. "The Embassy of Georgia requested the call," said campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.
But ethics experts have raised concerns about former lobbyists for foreign governments providing advice to presidential candidates about those same countries. "The question is, who is the client? Is the adviser loyal to income from a foreign client, or is he loyal to the candidate he is working for now?" said James Thurber, a lobbying expert at American University. "It's dangerous if you're getting advice from people who are very close to countries on one side or another of a conflict."
At the time of McCain's call, Scheunemann had formally ceased his own lobbying work for Georgia, according to federal disclosure reports. But he was still part of Orion Strategies, which had only two lobbyists, himself and Mike Mitchell.
Scheunemann remained with the firm for another month, until May 15, when the McCain campaign imposed a tough new anti-lobbyist policy and he was required to separate himself from the company.
Rogers said Scheunemann "receives no compensation of any type from Orion Strategies and has not since May 15, 2008." Scheunemann declined to be interviewed for this story.
As a private lobbyist trying to influence lawmakers and Bush administration staffers, Scheunemann at times relied on his access to McCain in his work for foreign clients on Capitol Hill. He and his partner reported 71 phone conversations and meetings with McCain and his top advisers since 2004 on behalf of foreign clients, including Georgia, according to forms they filed with the Justice Department.
The contacts often focused on Georgia's aspirations to join NATO and on legislative proposals, including a measure co-sponsored by McCain that supported Georgia's position on South Ossetia, one of the Georgian regions taken over by Russia this weekend.
Another measure lobbied by Orion and co-sponsored by McCain, the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2006, would have authorized a $10 million grant for Georgia.
For months while McCain's presidential campaign was gearing up, Scheunemann held dual roles, advising the candidate on foreign policy while working as Georgia's lobbyist. Between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, the campaign paid Scheunemann nearly $70,000 to provide foreign policy advice. During the same period, the government of Georgia paid his firm $290,000 in lobbying fees.
Since 2004, Orion has collected $800,000 from the government of Georgia.
Rogers said Orion's representation of Georgia had no bearing on McCain's decision to speak with Saakashvili in April. "The Embassy of Georgia requested the call because of Georgian concerns over recent Russian actions dealing with South Ossetia and Abkhazia," he said.
McCain has said that he has worked closely with Georgia and its top officials since the mid-1990s. On the campaign trail yesterday, McCain referred to Saakashvili as a close friend.
But Rogers acknowledged that "Scheunemann and others on the foreign policy staff are involved in call requests and statements on foreign policy issues."
After the April call, McCain issued a statement that day voicing support for Georgia's position.
"We must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty," McCain said in the statement. "Georgia has acted with restraint in its response and should continue to do so."
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it may be impossible to know whether Scheunemann's advice to McCain was truly unvarnished.
"The question is, whose views are you really espousing?" Sloan said. "Are they really your own views, or are they the views that are bought and paid for by the clients of your top aides? McCain probably would be sympathetic to Georgia regardless, but having a guy like Scheunemann as a top aide raises questions."
Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, said Scheunemann's business ties to Georgia raise questions about how much he influenced McCain's position on the Georgia conflict.
"It's these sorts of appearances of a conflict of interest that are a natural consequence of having a campaign run by lobbyists, staffed by lobbyists and being ensconced in a lobbyist culture for over a quarter of a century," Sevugan said.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Sure, if you were watching Fox, there's no telling what they might have done to the feed:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
"Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.
Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News and the original photo suggests that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. "
Unless you can produce the original news clips that includes the distorted photos, I gonna call this one...
http://raccol.com/images/smileys/bs_flag.gif
I wouldn't put it past the media myrmidons to pull such a stunt.
Juan Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams) (IMHO, a very fair democrat) has called them on it before (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666573,00.html).
http://raccol.com/images/smileys/bs_flag.gif
Fox is that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR1MB8tq-v0&feature=related
http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/07/02/Report_Fox_News_altered_photos/UPI-86461215049866/
Hillary just handed the nomination to Obama by acclamation. Doesn't look like disunity to me.
Oh, no. Louisiana just declared a state of emergency. Not again. :(
I did some quick research on this. Context is important so now, the rest of the story...
RE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308902,00.html
New York Times TV reporter, Jacques Steinberg, wrote an article saying MSNBC is competitive with Fox News in the 8:00 p.m. time slot. Mr. Steinberg knew it was not true, but he wrote it anyway.
The truth: In October 2007, MSNBC had no overall ratings growth at 8:00 p.m--none for five continuous weeks. The Factor had beaten them by 225 percent in total audience and 100 percent in the key demographic. Margins of victory rarely come bigger than that.
Steinberg knew the truth, but decided to distort it anyway.
Since he distorted the truth, they distorted his picture to poke a little fun.
Whether or not the libs like or trust Fox News really doesn't matter a whole lot. I can't imagine any news org maintaining these numbers if all they were spewing was lies and propoganda.
RE: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517290.html
For the year in primetime, Fox News was the No. 6-ranked cable channel behind USA Network, TNT, ESPN, TBS and Lifetime Television. That’s two notches higher than its ranking last year. CNN, its closest news competitor, was No. 26, down one.
Fox News was down 1% in total viewers in total day and 3% in the 25-54 demographic, but it still boasted most of the top-rated shows on cable news led by The O’Reilly Factor, which has been No. 1 in its 8 p.m. time slot for 85 consecutive months.
Like I always say, truth is truth whether or not you like it or agree with it.
The poodle was poking fun. The photos were fraudulent. That's quite the moral relativism you've got running there with that "context" rationalization for unabashed fakery on a supposed news channel.
I can't imagine any news org maintaining these numbers if all they were spewing was lies and propoganda.
I can. Fox knows how to tickle right-wing ears. Did you catch Hannity and Rove right after Bill Clinton's speech tonight? I switched over because I just knew there would be some hilarious sour grapes going on, and I was not disappointed. :lol:
Anyway who said anything about "all" they were spinning is lies and propaganda. I'd characterize it as habitually sloppy with the facts as Dan Rather on a bad day, and nearly constant pro-Republican anti-Democratic spin.
They really should have had Alan Colmes in that poodle suit, by the way.
I like Fox News, the others make me sick and the nation knows and agrees. Otherwise they would not hold the top spot.;)
FNC does have the largest audience among cable news outlets by a wide margin, it is true. However, at this time none of the cable news outlets are all that great, so lots of people get their news from sources other than cable news or even television at all. Viewed from that perspective, FNC is a sort of monolithic pravda for dittohead nation, providing a steady diet of predigested talking points. Most people prefer to do their own analysis of the news, and therefore choose from among a wide range of avaiiable sources.
Fox's slyly ironic motto, "we report, you decide" should make viewers skeptical, and that more aren't is troubling.
Will Fox's alleged "serious journalist" Brit Hume refer to the Republican Convention as "pure hokum" as he just did about the Democratic Convention?
No, he will not.
I seldom have to listen to Fox for more than one minute to hear unvarnished bias. Now I'm hearing Fred Barnes rip into Biden's speech. More fair and balanced coverage.
Even their supposed "news" coverage is no less biased than Keith Olbermann's program. But then I know that I'm watching an opinion program. Do Fox news viewers know they're watching opinion masquerading as news?
FNC does have the largest audience among cable news outlets by a wide margin, it is true. Ever consider it's because the folks got tired of the constant bombardment of left-wing propaganda from the MSM? Fox's position in the L-R scale is relative to your position on it. BTW, Fox probably has a higher number of self-proclaimed democrats than all the other news orgs have republicans combined. That mix is exactly why Glenn Beck is on CNN and some right-wing commentators got hired by other media outlets; because it works.
FNC makes no effort at all to separate their commentary from their reporting. That's their real journalistic failure, rather than the fact that they stack the deck so heavily against their token libs. Alan gets to thank the guests and introduce Greta, and FNC tries to pass that off as balance. <_<
Exhibit A is Brit Hume, supposed "journalist," who hardly bothers to even attempt to conceal his bias any longer. He knows his bosses don't require him or any other FNC "journalist" or "reporter" to.
You say a network like CNN is biased? Nothing near as much as FNC. What do you think would happen if, say, Wolf Blitzer were to always, without exception, speak in reverent tones whenever discussing Democratic politics, and open cynicism whenever discussing Republican politics?
Brit Hume does that all the time, only in reverse.
You hear and see that at FNC, you do not hear and see it at CNN, nor at MSNBC with Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, or even Chris Matthews. You have to listen to Keith Olbermann before reaching that level of open bias.
The difference, of course, is that MSNBC makes no pretense of passing Olbermann off as a dispassionate journalist, whereas FNC does with Hume.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.