« McCain Blasts "Activist Judges", Praises Roberts, Alito, Rehnquist | Main | The Hottest Models Come "Out" »

06 May 2008



Luther, you and many other Clinton haters must really enjoy mimicking Karl Rove. How is CNN biased toward Clinton? Jack Cafferty, Gloria Borger, Roland Martin, Donna Brazile ... they're all obviously ranting against Clinton and supporting Obama. Who is biased toward Clinton on CNN? Besides the credited Clinton surrogates?

Greg G

Okay, Obama was supposed to win North Carolina and he did, with 92% of the black vote and 36% of the white vote. He always gets these percentages. We've been saying for weeks he would win huge there. How is that this "big victory"? Geez, Obama and his media fanclub will spin gold out of hay.

Just Jack

Oh, and of course Lake County and Gary is the only county that hasn't reported votes. It looks like they have to see how many votes they need.

Franklyn Smyth

That's a good question. I'm also interested in hearing who the "pro-Clinton" anchors or reporters are at CNN? I can't think of any. But over at the Obama network, MSNBarack, the Obama fankidz and Hillary haters are Olbermamnn, Matthews, Shuster, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory ... their bias toward Obama has been well documented.

Chris Matthews has also made numerous racial stereotypes about Obama, but, well, he loves Obama some much, I guess the ObamaNation doesn't mind, right?

Quinton M

Luther, ummm, I think maybe you don't get the joke. When Rod puts "best political team on tv" in quotes, or anything in quotes like "progressive" or "neutral" or "Democrat", it certainly is NOT a compliment. CNN's coverage is not very good, but it certainly isn't as awfully biased as MSNBC or FOX.


It would be nice if people could give their opinion of the issues, instead of making personal attacks against other posters or supporters of a particular candidate. What purpose is served by calling people names over the internet? It just doesn't make any sense.


I'm confused, Cadence.

I mean, isn't that what you do to people who honestly critiques Obama and his many missteps and can back them up? calling people names...

pot calling the kettle BLACK, much?

werk, C..always giving us warped "truths", lies and clinton derangement syndrome delusions with a fierceness.



Ryan, can you point to a post where I did that? If you can then I will gladly appologize.

From what I remember, I've never accussed Hillary supporters of not being informed, drinking the kool-aid, or any of the other personal attacks that I've seen lobbed on this site and others. In fact, on more than one occassian I've posted to you and asked you to lay off the personal attacks and talk to me about the issues. For example, more than once last week I asked you to tell me how could the federal government stop people from participating in activities that put them at risk for being infected with HIV. Instead of giving a logical response that could have swayed my opinion, you decided to be petty and attack me personally; despite the fact that you don't know me, or know why I feel as I do. You couldn't even write your last post without resorting to being ugly. Which is pretty pathetic.



I have been talking to you about the issues, and pretty much, you've managed to be disrespectful and crass towards me in my criticisms of Obama--which aren't really critiques but just simple questions:

How can Obama be so transcendent and "above" race when he uses race for his own public agenda?

WHy aren't his campaign platforms more coherent? I have framed a lot of my issues with obama along these two (and many more questions) but, i've noticed that you tend to take a lot of my remarks personally.

As for picking out specific posts, read everything I've posted since this election started and read your responses to me...and tell me that's not being disrespectful.

I didn't attack you regarding hillary. I just didnt understand how you could attack her policies for HIV/AIDS when she's given a more stronger response to it than Obama did. that's not a critique that's just a question of why you feel that obama was stronger in this regard when he wasn't and that's been proven by the many democratic strategists who have appeared on the news shows about HIV/AIDS...

I didn't personally attack you...I would have to care enough to do so.

It's not my fault that your very problematic issues with Hillary aren't grounded in anything substantial...

And, my responses to you on your thoughts about Hillary vs. Obama have always been logical and thorough. It's not my fault that your conception of "thorough" is rooted in baseless attacks of a woman who is just as qualified as obama to run this country.

I've always wanted to know why you have such issues with Clinton, that's all. You have yet to come up with reasons why she shouldn't be the nominee and why black people shouldn't vote for her, etc. What you have come up with has been ridiculous, off base, and clearly indicative of the very subversive, Republican-esque dialogue about Clinton that has been going on since the beginning.

To me, its almost like you are overly critical of anyone who doesn't support Obama and I just find you..and that level of logic ridiculous.

That's why I constantly question you...I just don't really understand or get your thought process.

But, I don't know you..and I pretty much know I wouldn't be impressed with you if I did.

There is nothing ugly about my post. Nothing at all..if you took it that way, well, that's for you to figure out away from the computer.

Have a good night.

Taylor Siluwe

To paraphrase a recently over-used phrase, the Clinton's chickens are coming home to roost.

They've thrown Chelsea into the college arena to cut into Obama's student momentum, race-baited, lobbed the 'F' bomb (Farrakhan), thrown mud in the form of Rev. Wright (and I believe were the architects behind his re-surfacing)... and still, the people ain't buying it.

When you get down in the dirt as much as the Clintons do, you get real damn dirty -- and it shows. The people aren't totally stupid anymore.

Obama, by comparison, is squeaky clean -- and he's the best candidate to take on McCain and his 'spiritual supporter' (Hagee -- who's so excited about starting a nuclear holocaust he's dancing around like a kid who's gotta pee.)

Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

Because if he's not, then woe to the world.


First of all, Ryan, if you will re-read my posts on HIV, I never said that Obama had a better plan. My point was and always has been that I don't think the federal government can play a key role in stopping people from having unprotected sex, not knowing their status or the status of their partners, or using drugs. My question to you and others was to prove how he government can do this. But, instead of answering you decided to result to insults as usual. As if that accomplished anything.

The only time I've praised Obama's response to HIV over Clintons was months ago, when at a debate at a predominately Black college people praised Clinton when she said that if White women were being infected at the rate of Black women then there would be a cure by now. But, people criticized Obama when he said the solution lies in personal responsibility, education, and an end to the myth that HIV only infects gay men. To me that was an example of pandering, and I've always made it clear that I was angry with the response from those in attendance and reporters who acted like Clinton had said something profound, or something that could actually stem the rate of infection among Black women, and that Obama was ignoring the problem.

Ryan, please point out a post where I've been crass to you, or where I answered a criticism of Obama with a personal attack on you. As I said, if you do this, I will gladly apologize and say that I was wrong. I know I can point out specific examles where you have done this to me, but I'm not sure you can say the same.

And while you are at it, can you please point out where I have lied about Hillary Clinton, or where instead of answering my problems with Clinton with examples of why you think these issues aren't problems, you didn't instead choose to call me mindless.

I am opening to debating, and I don't have a problem backing up my stances with facts. As I've stated before I have several problems with Hillary from her claims that DADT and DOMA where the right political moves at the time, to her "moderate" positions that put her more in line with the Republicans, to her pandering to the polls. If you want to debate those issues then i am open to doing that. If you want to make personal attacks on me, then I don't have the time or the patience for that. Of course I'm going to debate people who I disagree with, but that's a big difference than taking your tactic and trashing people. It's sad that you don't know the difference.


Luther, you're an Obama supporter? Wow. I thought you were a Republican, I have never ever heard you say anything about Obama and your comments are often verbatim right wing talking points. On the other hand, that's par for the course for the Obama campaign.

So once again, who are the "biased" Clinton voices on CNN? I can't think of one single pro-Clinton voice on CNN besides an official campaign surrogate. But Jack Cafferty, Jeffrey Toobin, Gloria Borger, Roland Martin and Donna "I Made Gore Lose in 2000" Brazile are certainly no friends to the campaign. Who are you referring to, or, do you simply prefer more aggressive anti-Clinton bias like on MSNBC?

One more thing. The Mayor of Hammond was on at the same time the Mayor Gary was on, and the Gary mayor, as everyone in the world saw, was not an Obama supporter but tried to hold up the election returns for hours. That must be the new politics.

Tyler Gray

I'm trying to understand why the media and Obama groupies are so gleeful. North Carolina was never in doubt, only the margin was larger than expected. But there should be no celebration that Obama once again won a SOUTHERN RED STATE with OVERWHELMING BLACK SUPPORT that we have NO CHANCE of winning in the fall. 30 percent of the white vote in both states? Wow. That's the Obama script, red states with black voters small caucuses with overwhelmingly white voters.

I'm curious why this is celebrated as such a huge victory. Indiana neighbors Illinois, Obama was favored to win there, said he would win there, and Clinton took precincts that bordered Chicago city limits. She eeked out a win, but that was to her credit. As Obama said in Pennsylvania, "A win is 50% plus one vote." A win is a win.


Tyler Gray, I think some people were surprised that Obama didn't lose more of the White vote. The definition of victory has been changed many times in this race, as you pointed out, some don't think it's a victory when Obama wins a state with a large Black population, or caucuses, or small states. Or, that Hillary has a win, when she only wins by a 2% margin in a state with a small Black population.

What constitutes winning and losing in this contest has been changed to more of a psychological viewpoint than anything that is real or tangible.



sorry, but you're wrong. And, I did go back through that hillary post and you are sipping that Clinton Derangement Syndrome..as always.

So, while you continue your whole "Well, I have never attacked you or anyone else" role, just remember this phrase:


As for last night, Hillary will probably go until the end. It' snot a question of should she or shouldn't she..it's how the democratic party set up their nomination process. She has to go until June.

If Obama is the perceived nominee (and remeber Obamabots, NEITHER has the 2025 votes needed to be the nominee outright so going til June is a fact, as well as august at the DNC), he still has to learn HOW to win big working class white states...dont act like he can win without them..HE WON'T.

The reality is that Clinton is basically giving your boy a tune up for the race in the fall...Barack hasn't really shown that he can withstand a strong attack from another politican...

and dont give me that whole he's not a politican he's running a real campaign...trust me, he's politican--his denouncing of Reverend Wright proves that.

Personally, all three of them (Clinton, Obama, McCain) have more flaws than Pamela ANderson has REAL body parts--but, America wants a candidate in office who is going to RUN the country, not be a showboat. So, to the obamabots who are constantly riding Clinton for how she does this, that, and the other as a campaigner...remember this IF you go out and vote in November..because i think the majority of you won't.

I think the race won't end until June. And, I think Obama is going to have a hard time of winning the nomination in November...if he doesnt figure out HOW to win large states with white voters, he's done.

Clinton may not be the nominee, but she can win those states...and it has nothing to dow ith her being white: it's the simple fact that she's a damn good politican whose policies SPEAK to working class white AND black people...

Obama might want to review her platforms and policies and start taking notes...really.

And, whether you like it or not, Clinton is STILL going to be amajor voice in the White HOuse...that seems very evident. So, even she's not the president, she'll still be present and accounted for--whoever is in office.

As for Obama, he may want to start strategizing about how he's going to distance himself from Wright once and for all, deal with his wife's alleged anti-patriotism, his weak stances on the economy, HIV/AIDS, education, and the like NOW..because the Republicans are going to go after him with a vengeance...

Are the obamabots ready for that? I doubt it...


Ryan, unles you can point out the post where I personally insulted you or anyone else, I'm going to let this end. I've asked you to point out examples twice, but you haven't. Just like I asked you to give examples of how the feds can change personal behavior, and again you haven't, but you have continued with the pointless insults. Which implies to me that you have no facts to back up either arguemennt. So as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the discussion, unless you can figure out a way to drag it up out of the gutter.



point out what? read the posts again..

oh cadence...my insults aren't pointless..im just pointing out the obvious..

my hillary posts spoke more to her offering actual wayos combating HIV/AIDS she was focusing on prevention methods she always has...

she never once suggested the federal government come in and change people's minds about HIV/AIDS...she did suggest and state that further prevention methods and more grassroots efforts among HIV/AIDS organizations,c oupled with additional funding from the government can only be aids in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

and why would you suggest or expect the federal government to change people's behavior? Clinton never suggested or encouraged that at all in her discussions about HIV/AIDS prevention and how she would go about fighting it. she didn't and you KNOW she didnt.

and you came in and went off about how the fed gov't should be involved in changing behaviour when they can't.

the reality is this: I just think that all of your issues with hillary are without grounds.

I lived in New York when she was a Sentor and she actually got things done. I feel like she is probably one of the strongest democratic candidates in a long while..Obama is strong, but I think hillary has always understood the ins and outs of the white house not just because she was married to bill but because she was born a leader...

obama..not so much.

we dont have to speak at all...i dont find much of what you say original or really relevant because you won't acknowledge the fact that you really dont like clinton...because she's a clinton. that's all i want you to admit.

and, there's nothing gutter about any of my comments to you at this site. Your clinton derangement syndrome flare-ups and your championing of obama when he's been just as dirty as you claim clinton has been during this nomination run...that's gutter.



speak the truth. But, you know THEY aren't listening to you...

Obama won't win the presidency until he figures out HOW to win southern and working class NORTHERN white states--the BIG ONES.


Luther, I agree with you entire post. I'm also a registered independent, and fiscally conservative. I don't identify with one party, because like most humans, I can think for myself, and no one party represents all that I believe.

Rod Mc

ALL: Please keep the tone civil and avoid personal attacks.

LUTHER: Was that a joke earlier? CNN is biased towards Clinton? Who are these pro-Clinton anchors or reporters? CNN is not as rabidly anti-Clinton as MSNBC, but, it's certainly has its fair share of Clinton haters, such as Cafferty, Bernstein and Borger, as well as Obama apologists such as Roland Martin and Soledad O'Brien.

JUST JACK AND ATL KID: It's sad that some people were amused by the stunt pulled by the mayor of Gary, but, that's Chicago and NW Indiana politics. This presidential primary continues to remind me of Chicago's mayoral elections from the late 80s and early 90s. Maybe that's because Axelrod, Daley, Jesse Jackson Jr, etc. are running the same playbook.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad