Hillary is desperate: Staying in the race because assassination is possible

[BroncoBuff]

So sad. And she wonders why Obama won't even consider her for VP ...

Clinton sparks uproar with Kennedy assassination comment

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton triggered a firestorm on Friday after bringing up the 1968 assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy to justify her decision to prolong her long-shot White House campaign. A day after a top supporter suggested Clinton was getting desperate and she compared a row over voided primaries in Michigan and Florida to the crisis in Zimbabwe, the former first lady sent new shock waves through the race.

Clinton told a newspaper board in South Dakota she could not understand calls for her to quit, arguing that history showed that some past nominating contests had gone on into June. "My husband (Bill Clinton) did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said in an interview with the Argus Leader newspaper editorial board.

"We all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it," Clinton said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton condemned her comment as "unfortunate" and said it "has no place in this campaign."

Clinton appeared to reference the Kennedy killing at the end of the 1968 Democratic presidential race to show that previous Democratic nominating contests have stretched well into June. But referring to political assassinations is fraught with sensitivity, especially for supporters of Obama, who accepted Secret Service protection last year, long before the time it is offered to most presidential candidates, because of unspecified threats.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...bbsD-mT30oWfZA

[BarefootKicker]

Keith Olbermann destroyed her tonight with his special comment on this. At the end he goes through a list of all the things we have forgiven her for and then says we cannot forgive you for this.

[cutthemdown]

what a nasty battle this has been. Obama and Hilliary gave us one entertaining primary. The Republicans not so much. I wonder how much Obama and McCain will fight it out or if the general election will be a let down.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm less concerned with the entertainment value than the serious business of choosing the right man to lead America out of the BushCo quagmire - but I realize that for a lot of dumbed-down citizens these elections are just another form of infotainment.

[Rohirrim]

Keith Olberman has become a bloated caricature; A preening toad wallowing in Edward R. Murrow fantasies who is now nothing more than the flip side of the Bill O'Reilly coin. I don't know how anybody can even get their political fix from PMSNBC anymore. It's become the 24 hour Obama-channel. Chris Matthews has treated Clinton's campaign as if it were a personal insult. The worst political coverage I have seen in my lifetime. Since when do journalists (and I use that word extremely lightly) tell candidates to end a campaign? I've never heard of such a thing.

[Northman]

All of the nominations suck, why is this even news?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Keith Olberman has become a bloated caricature; A preening toad wallowing in Edward R. Murrow fantasies who is now nothing more than the flip side of the Bill O'Reilly coin. I don't know how anybody can even get their political fix from PMSNBC anymore. It's become the 24 hour Obama-channel.

Really? Okay, name ONE PERSON on MSNBC who's clearly an Obama supporter other than Keith and (to a lesser extent) Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson. Trust me, you can't ... I've been all through this exact issue over and over with friends and my Hillary supporting gf. I have MSNBC on in the background at least four hours a day, and here's the scoop:

Olbermann, Maddow, Robinson and David Schuster = Obama
Chris Matthews = John Edwards, John McCain
Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Andrea Mitchell = Republicans
David Gregory, Norah O'Donnell, Dan Abrams = Cannot tell (Abrams is fanatically even-handed)
(Formerly MSNBC) Don Imus = John McCain
Contessa Brewer = prolly Republican
Mikah Brzieinski = prolly Democrat

Pretty even distribution. You gotta watch more than just Countdown, Roh, before you blast the whole network.

Originally Posted by Roh

The worst political coverage I have seen in my lifetime. Since when do journalists (and I use that word extremely lightly) tell candidates to end a campaign? I've never heard of such a thing.

You've "never heard of such a thing," because it's never happened. I've never missed a Countdown (Tivo), and Olbermann has never - NEVER - told her to get out. And I'm 99% sure Matthews hasn't, either. Nor has Obama. So where exactly do you get this?

Just like in sports or show business any other media-covered public sector ... within the beltway/media, people know things that they do not report, and I think the truth is that Clinton is a poisonous, runious force in her party and in politics. Are you aware that it is common knowledge Hillary did little (or nothing) to help Kerry in '04, because if he had won, she couldn't run 'til 2012? That is common knowledge within the beltway/media. Why else would John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards (albeit reluctantly), and a million former Clinton people including cabinet members Bill Richardson, Robert Reich, Janet Reno, and on and on, have endorsed Obama?

Olbermann is heavily slanted toward Obama, no doubt about it. And he often tries to put words into the mouths his "usual suspect" talking heads (Richard Wolffe, Dana Milbanks, Jonathan Alter, Howard Feinmann). But he is the most talented and entertaining media figure anywhere on the air ... that has to count for something. And unlike O'Reilly - whom you inexplicably compare to him - Olbermann does not sexually harrass his employees, threaten callers to his radio show with non-existent police investigations and "Fox Security," nor would Keith ever dream of stooping to O'Reilly's level in airing libelous charges that NBC and GE chief Jeff Immelt are "killing American kids" in Iraq, as blatant retaliation for Olbermann's "Worst Persons" segment, and leverage to get him to stop listing O'Reilly as among the "Worst."

Opinions are fine, but we should all use as many facts as we can get to form them.

[BroncoBuff]

(Fox News president Roger) Ailes called (NBC News president Jeffrey) Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.

Both Fox and the Post are owned by Murdoch, who complained about Olbermann's conduct in separate calls to Zucker and Immelt.

The high-level appeals failed, and O'Reilly has escalated his criticism of GE in recent weeks, declaring, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt."

What began four years ago as a colorful feud between rival commentators, instigated by Olbermann as a way of drawing attention, has become a tale of bruised egos and secret maneuvering at the highest levels of two multinational giants.

Fox News spokesman Brian Lewis said Ailes never offered a "quid pro quo" involving a cease-fire by O'Reilly and Olbermann. "That's editorial control of Bill's show, and we don't do that," he said. "Bill doesn't run topics by Roger, or anyone else for that matter."

Lewis dismissed the notion that Ailes has ever suggested using Murdoch's tabloid for revenge, saying: "Roger doesn't control the editorial policy of the New York Post."

Olbermann delights in ridiculing "Bill-O" virtually every night for his style, his interviews and his opinions, lambasting what he calls "Fox Noise" and often bestowing on O'Reilly his "Worst Person in the World" award.

O'Reilly has denounced NBC just as vehemently but now aims higher on the corporate ladder. On his Fox News show this month, O'Reilly said that Immelt "is doing business right this minute with Iran, who are killing our soldiers. . . . That Immelt man answers to me. . . . That's why I'm in this business right now, to get guys like that."

[Spider]

well I am clearly on Olbermanns side in the O'Lielly feud .........

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I'm less concerned with the entertainment value than the serious business of choosing the right man to lead America out of the BushCo quagmire - but I realize that for a lot of dumbed-down citizens these elections are just another form of infotainment.

I can't lie I do enjoy following politics. Anything in life can be entertainment even if it is serious. What a total farce that in order for someone to be entertained he has to be dumb downed.

[cutthemdown]

This election has fractured the democratic party along racial lines. It will be hard for them to come together quickly.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

This election has fractured the democratic party along racial lines. It will be hard for them to come together quickly.

If Hillary could admit it was over, stop raiding the specter of Obama being assassinated and do her best to help the party, things would be a lot easier.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

This election has fractured the democratic party along racial lines. It will be hard for them to come together quickly.

Oh Bull**** ...... people have the attention span of 5 minutes ..... after June this will be forgotten about or all forgiven ...... things that seem so important now , will only be an after thought 2 months from now

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Really? Okay, name ONE PERSON on MSNBC who's clearly an Obama supporter other than Keith and (to a lesser extent) Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson. Trust me, you can't ... I've been all through this exact issue over and over with friends and my Hillary supporting gf. I have MSNBC on in the background at least four hours a day, and here's the scoop:

Olbermann, Maddow, Robinson and David Schuster = Obama
Chris Matthews = John Edwards, John McCain
Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Andrea Mitchell = Republicans
David Gregory, Norah O'Donnell, Dan Abrams = Cannot tell (Abrams is fanatically even-handed)
(Formerly MSNBC) Don Imus = John McCain
Contessa Brewer = prolly Republican
Mikah Brzieinski = prolly Democrat

Pretty even distribution. You gotta watch more than just Countdown, Roh, before you blast the whole network.




You've "never heard of such a thing," because it's never happened. I've never missed a Countdown (Tivo), and Olbermann has never - NEVER - told her to get out. And I'm 99% sure Matthews hasn't, either. Nor has Obama. So where exactly do you get this?

Just like in sports or show business any other media-covered public sector ... within the beltway/media, people know things that they do not report, and I think the truth is that Clinton is a poisonous, runious force in her party and in politics. Are you aware that it is common knowledge Hillary did little (or nothing) to help Kerry in '04, because if he had won, she couldn't run 'til 2012? That is common knowledge within the beltway/media. Why else would John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards (albeit reluctantly), and a million former Clinton people including cabinet members Bill Richardson, Robert Reich, Janet Reno, and on and on, have endorsed Obama?

Olbermann is heavily slanted toward Obama, no doubt about it. And he often tries to put words into the mouths his "usual suspect" talking heads (Richard Wolffe, Dana Milbanks, Jonathan Alter, Howard Feinmann). But he is the most talented and entertaining media figure anywhere on the air ... that has to count for something. And unlike O'Reilly - whom you inexplicably compare to him - Olbermann does not sexually harrass his employees, threaten callers to his radio show with non-existent police investigations and "Fox Security," nor would Keith ever dream of stooping to O'Reilly's level in airing libelous charges that NBC and GE chief Jeff Immelt are "killing American kids" in Iraq, as blatant retaliation for Olbermann's "Worst Persons" segment, and leverage to get him to stop listing O'Reilly as among the "Worst."

Opinions are fine, but we should all use as many facts as we can get to form them.

And denial is a river in Egypt. There's not one fact in the above diatribe. It's simply your perception as seen through your Obama-glasses. You're saying Olberman and Matthews have never made jokes about Clinton or why she continues to run? Right. And I've got a bridge for sale. Chris Matthews may not be as vociferously pro-Obama as Keith, Rachel or Eugene, but he is so vehemently anti-Clinton that the effect is the same. It's embarrassing to watch him and Keith try to bend some of the respected journalists they invite on their shows to their Obamarama talking points. Of course, whenever they put Rachel and Eugene on (every night), the Obama love-fest can truly bloom.

This has been the most media biased hatchet job on a candidate (MSNBC on Clinton) that I've ever seen. BTW, I've been watching this as a Ron Paul supporter so my position is neutral. Ever wonder what happened to Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly? He used to be on with Chris and Keith every night until he refused to go along with their "Bill Clinton is a racist" diatribes and Obama knob slobbering.

I know nothing about Olberman's sex life (nor do I want to) but he is no different than the demagogues of Fox News. He just comes in a different political flavor. He's simply a leftist version of Brit Hume. Demagoguery is demagoguery. And there is nothing like an Olberman rant for bloated sanctimony and self-righteousness.

Frankly, I think Obama should be given some kind of major tax break, like all the rest of America's religious cult leaders.

When I want objective news, I go to PBS.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

If Hillary could admit it was over, stop raiding the specter of Obama being assassinated and do her best to help the party, things would be a lot easier.

right..... but she sees it as this nobody who hasn't paid his dues stealing her chance at power. She had a plan, Obama is ruining it, and she will do anything to win. Even take the fight to the convention.

[Rohirrim]

Personally, I like it. This is how politics used to be, before we became a society of self-medicated, boob tube drivel and pap swillers. The fight almost always went to the convention floor. That's what made it fun. We've become such a wimpy society that even engaging in political fights has become politically incorrect.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And denial is a river in Egypt. There's not one fact in the above diatribe. It's simply your perception as seen through your Obama-glasses.

Obama glasses? We're talking about MSNBC here, and I quite well know what I'm taking about. There's TONS of facts in that post, but for some reason you just don't want to see them. I'll ask you again: Name one MSNBC person other than Olbermann, Maddow and Robinson that are pro-Obama. You can't do it, so just give up. Like I said, I've been all through this debate with friends and my girlfriend for several weeks, and that argument is hopeless.

You're saying Olberman and Matthews have never made jokes about Clinton or why she continues to run? Right. And I've got a bridge for sale.

What's the heck's the matter with you? I said nothing of the kind. The "jokes" they tell (better described as comments, thank you), are identical to the types of comments they made when Huckabee refused to end his campaign after he was mathematicaly eliminated. It's not personal, it's just gallows humor aimed at the Quixotically impaired.

Chris Matthews may not be as vociferously pro-Obama as Keith, Rachel or Eugene, but he is so vehemently anti-Clinton that the effect is the same.

Chris Matthews is pro-John Edwards and pro-John McCain. That's just fact, he's copped to it several times.

It's embarrassing to watch him and Keith try to bend some of the respected journalists they invite on their shows to their Obamarama talking points. Of course, whenever they put Rachel and Eugene on (every night), the Obama love-fest can truly bloom.

Keith definitely does that. As I've said many, many, many times, including above in this thread. So I'm not biting at the straw-man you set up. But you're just plain wrong lumping them together ... Matthews (and Gregory and Abrams) almost never puts words in peoples' mouths. Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson though, are pros at telling people what they should say, and explaining what they've already sad in terms that suit them. They're just as bad as Keith.

This has been the most media biased hatchet job on a candidate (MSNBC on Clinton) that I've ever seen.

Dude ... you need help. Are you even watching? Olbermann's current hatchet job on McCain ("Old man yells at cloud") makes his anti-Hillary stuff look seriously tame.

If you really want to really see "the most media biased hatchet job," tune in to a weekend show on Fox called "Hannity's America." You'll have an entirely new perspective on what constitutes a "hatchet job." But if you do tune in, brace yourself, and bring a bucket just in case you hurl.

BTW, I've been watching this as a Ron Paul supporter so my position is neutral. Ever wonder what happened to Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly? He used to be on with Chris and Keith every night until he refused to go along with their "Bill Clinton is a racist" diatribes and Obama knob slobbering.

Neutral? Your word-choice and tone speak volumes it is otherwise. And you just don't know the story on Crawford, let me catch you up: He was 86'd from the network (supposedly temporarily) because he went on a rant with Joe Scarborough, and ended up saying that anti-Hillary people were "insane," or "mentally ill." That was awhile back, he should have been back on by now.

I know nothing about Olberman's sex life (nor do I want to)

Sex life? Who said anything about a sex life? I said O'Reilly has on several occassions over the years been accused of sexual harassment. Fox News producer Andrea Mackris finally got him on tape in 2004, and Fox settled with her to keep the tapes quiet for in excess of TEN MILLION DOLLARS. Some website posted public real property sale records showing Mackris purchased a Manhattan apartment and a Virginia farm for a combind total of over $5 million mere months after the settlement. Now ... you wanna paint Keith with that brush?

And there is nothing like an Olberman rant for bloated sanctimony and self-righteousness.

Hard to argue with that ... but there is an ulterior benefit: RATINGS. Which is really the point, after all. Olbermann's ratings went through the roof after he started his Special Comments. And that's another thing, you're conflating TALK SHOW hosts with STRAIGHT NEWS people. Fact is, they're a different breed altgether. For heaven's sake, Hannity and Colmes are intentionally cast as political opponents. Only very few hosts are INTENTIONALLY straight news reporters - Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer (over at C-Yawn-Yawn), and David Gregory and Dan Abrams at MSNBC. At least Abrams is fun and he spices things up. I really like Abrams a lot, you would too if you gave him a chance.

Frankly, I think Obama should be given some kind of major tax break, like all the rest of America's religious cult leaders.

So that's how it is ... you finally expose yourself. You ARE pro-Hillary, at least to the extent you can't stand Obama.


Face it, you're just a Keith-hater. He's the only pro-Obama HOST on the network, and Maddow and Robinson constitute a decided MINORITY among the dozen or so regular MSNBC talking heads. You're a Keith-hater. That's cool I guess, but you should aim your (often correct) criticisms toward him, and not toward MSNBC. Unless you can show that Pat Buchanan, Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson, David Gregory and Joe Scarborough have suddenly endorsed Obama

I'll help you out, though ... give you some more evidence for your "MSNBC is anti-Hillary" campaign (however lost a cause it is): MSNBC reporter David Schuster (formerly of Fox News), while filling in as host of Hardball three months ago, made the unfortunate comment that Hillary was "pimping out her daughter" after it was learned Chelsea was telephoning super-delegates on behalf of her Mom. Schuster was suspended two weeks without pay. He explained in his apology that he was merely trying to do well in his talk host fill-in chance in hopes of becoming a regular fill-in, noting that talk hosts should provoke discussion, not just report facts (see above).

[BroncoBuff]

Here's a story on the Crawford gaffe, though it doesn't mention he was 86'd: http://mediamatters.org/items/200801260001

Contrary to your "slob knobbering Obama blinders" insult, I was actually pro-Hillary until right around the South Carolina primary, when Bill dismissed Obama's win in racial terms, saying "Jesse Jackson won here too, in 84 and 88." That's when I started re-thinking things. I read Obama's books, and became an Obama convert. Prior to that, I thought he should wait 8 years to run.

[bronco militia]

when you keep the comment in context, it seems harmless....but she should know better.

[Arkie]

She'll be back in 2012. It was probably Bill's idea anyway.

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Keith Olberman has become a bloated caricature; A preening toad wallowing in Edward R. Murrow fantasies who is now nothing more than the flip side of the Bill O'Reilly coin. I don't know how anybody can even get their political fix from PMSNBC anymore. It's become the 24 hour Obama-channel. Chris Matthews has treated Clinton's campaign as if it were a personal insult. The worst political coverage I have seen in my lifetime. Since when do journalists (and I use that word extremely lightly) tell candidates to end a campaign? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might have trouble gathering how "journalism" has changed (or rather how it's motives have become apparent) with the advent of Fox News and cable news in general--journalist's have never been objective, beyond some wet-dream fantasy. What Fox News has allowed is for TV News Personalities (not journalists, though they use journalistic tendencies, think the Columnists of Television) is to where their ideology, their pandering, their aesthetics on their sleeves and they get ratings for it. I imagine you don't agree with KO, but it's disingenuous to deny that the man is articulate, prepared, and logical. You can actually read his transcripts and see labor and logic bare out through many-fold rhetorical tests, especially his Special Comments.

Of course, there's something different--dare I say, special--about Obama that invites even those who portend to be objective to rally around him. After years of the media pandering to Bush, eviscerating Kerry (for windsurfing, frenchness, the complexity of his war votes)--I'm personally thrilled to see at least one media outlet progressively talk about progressive values. It might be hard for you to get your mind around but progressive is neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a discourse that arises out of challenging commonly held beliefs. KO's been doing that for a while, and building more and more success--MSNBC might be following his lead in its challenge to pundits and the production of their shows, but I'm not sure you can make the argument that angle is liberal. Let's not forget this network is born out of interests of General Electric (NBC) and Microsoft--i.e. a similarly huge coporatism that BushCo. was founded upon.

If you can't separate the front page from the opinion page, if you can't distinguish between a journalist and columnist, you really don't know what you're talking about. And brandishing your ideological saber with soft-steps of galloping bronco.

[Rohirrim]

I guess if BroncoBuff can't win the argument by sheer weight, Pseudo the Solipsist will step in and give empty rhetorical flourishes a shot, including that last sentence which is basically indecipherable.

Anyway, neither argument does anything to dissuade the fact that many of these shows (especially on MSNBC) have morphed (during the campaign) from ostensibly news outlets, to demagogic platforms. I'd say it goes way beyond the tame realm of the columnist. What once was presented as in- depth news discussions based on fact (I've watched Keith and Matthews for years) have changed into nightly harangues no doubt built on the success of the Lou Dobbs model. In fact, the change has been so unsubtle that I suspect a directive from the corporate "above", based on ratings.

I just have to shake my head. This country is engaged in a carbon copy of the Bush campaign. It's the same "ask no questions" drive to the WH the media gave Dubya. Now the shoe is on the progressive foot. Obama gets the red carpet and the U.S. gets another president without substance. Maybe there actually are "powers that be" out there, orchestrating this entire dog and pony show. It has more the smell of American Idol to it than the traditional politics of America.

BTW, Hillary is right. These campaigns used to regularly go into June and beyond (the clear point she was making about RFK), which of course, the media have now twisted beyond all recognition so that now, not only are the Clintons racists, but they are hoping for the assassination of Obama as well. Perhaps the continuation of the Dem contest is bad for ratings and they want it to end so they can move into the grand finale phase of "Obama vs. McCain: The Showdown." (cue the Good, Bad & The Ugly music)

Anyway, as always, I've obviously strayed into that territory of going against the herd (and the herders) which is never appreciated. So to all my Obamatron friends I say, "Enjoy Obama's media orchestrated stroll into the WH!"

Unfortunately for our country, the rose-colored Obama glasses won't be coming off until after his presidency has become the disaster it's destined to be - when Americans will turn to each other (like they started to a few years ago regarding Bush) and ask each other, "Why didn't we ask any questions about this guy?" Well, it's because the organ you created to carry out that function (the press) is now in the info-tainment business.

I leave you with Craig Crawford, a real journalist, and his observation: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

Speak not against the herd, Craig.

BTW, BB, your thread title is basically the exact kind of smear you profess to despise.

[BroncoBuff]

Once again, you're painting all of MSNBC with a Keith brush. If you want to win the argument I'M ACTUALLY HAVING, I'll ask yet again, for the fourth time in this thread:

Name one MSNBC host or commentator that is pro-Obama, other than Keith, Rachel and Eugene.

I'll wait right here.

Actually, just 3 out of 15 or so hosts and commentators sounds like an Obama-gap! And I for one am sick of MSNBC failing to appreciate Obama and his candidacy. (Don't just complain, name names).

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I guess if BroncoBuff can't win the argument by sheer weight.

Win the arument? What argument? I agree with 90% of what you say about Olbermann, so that means Keith's leanings are not really an argument. But to the extent your theisis on his favoritism is correct, I'll cede victory to you despite the fact I never argued otherwise.

BUT ... if you wanna talk about "sheer weight" of the argument, join the battle fairly: Name ONE host/commentator at MSNBC other than Keith, Rachel and Eugene who are pro-Obama. I've listed more than a dozen who favor other candidates. Since you have not and probably can not, your thesis that "MSNBC is Pro-Obama" has gone down to defeat, sir.

Chin up, though. Like I said, I've been having this identical argument with three people the past couple of months, and all three have basically conceded their accusations against MSNBC are really Keith accusations.

The bright side for us 'Keith-fans' is that your strange, non-sensical painting of the whole network with a 'Keith brush' merely proves what a powerful and influential commentator he's become. Thanks for that

I leave you with Craig Crawford, a real journalist, and his observation: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

Speak not against the herd, Craig.

What herd? Again, I'll issue the challenge you've dodged at every turn: Name a single MSNBC host or commentator outside Keith, Rachel and Eugene who are Pro-Obama. Yet again, you can't do it. Three does not make "a herd."

And regarding Crawford, you conveniently left the part out where he said those commentators were "mentally ill." He was suspended from the network for that comment, for good reason. From the opposite end of the spectrum, David Schuster was also suspended without pay for slamming Hillary. Also for good reason.

BTW, BB, your thread title is basically the exact kind of smear you profess to despise.

Is this really Rohirrim? Who stole Roh's identity? Unlke every post I've ever read of yours, you're indecipherable here ... I NEVER "professed to despise" commentary on the state of candidates and their campaigns (or as you put it, "smearing.") I had no problem with SNL making fun of ('smearing') Mike Huckabee for also staying in the race after he was mathematically eliminated. Huckabee himself went on Weekend Update to make fun of his own delusional Quixotic quest.

You really, truly think she's NOT desperate? Really? Her campaign's "top priority now" (quoting her) is fighting to "count every single vote" in MI and FL, despite the fact she agreed completely with the sanctions against those states as late as three months ago. That is a wild, careening flip-flop that undercuts her party and its leadership. It means just one thing - desperation.

And even speaking the word "assassination," especially as a justification for staying in the race, (which can only mean "Obama might be assassinated," there's simply no other reasonable inference), is textbook desperation. If the possibility of assassination is the reason you're staying in a race you've been mathematicaly eliminated from (last week in Oregon), you are desperate. Period.

Doesn't matter who says it ... imagine if Huckabee had said, "I realize I cannot win the majority of the delegates, John McCain has the numbers. But I'm staying in the race because we know candidates have been assassinated in the past." Sounds pretty ugly when it's not your girl saying it, eh?

[Spider]

I gave up on cable news ...........All of them ....Tucker Carlson getting his own show ruined it for me