Buzzflash has become Obamaflash - a home for anything that smears Clinton or praises Obama

[papau]

It appears the concept of unfair media extends to Media on the left.

Buzzflash has turned itself into Obamaflash as it is smear Clinton 24/7 these days.

Currently a person writing as "P M Carpenter" on that site was angry about Hillary saying that "You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio. And that is what we've done. We've won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee." - calling it a "non sequitur" for Hillary to note that in the primaries she has won the "big" states, the "important" states, such as California and New York -- states, she goes on to say, that Democrats must carry in the general if they're to have any hope. The problem to this Obama fan being the implication that "she alone can win them in November". And of course the writer is correct that such an implication is wrong.

But, of course, Hillary does not imply that - she's only implying the reasonable thought that she'd have a leg up in those states compared to Obama.

But the the Buzzflash writer does not discuss the obvious backside of their thought - that almost all of Obama's caucus and red state wins mean nothing as to winning in November as those Red States are not about to change - and those small turnout only those that get time off from work caucuses are quite a bit less than democratic - they are just cheap and allow the party professionals to control their state - the very thing Obama and the Obama media decry as they claim super delegates are "just" party professionals - ignoring that those "super" folks in general represent the people better that the "elected" delegates as more than half of the supers are just Democrats that won much larger elections, primary and general, than any caucus delegate will ever stand for.

P m Carpenter claims Hillary is doing "underhanded, bullying", "retailing these insults to what passes for the multitudes' intelligence" -- But the writer does not realize that it is Buzzflash through the writer that is "underhanded, bullying", "retailing insults".


Somehow the idea that our primary/caucus/super delegate system has logic behind it - and that no part of it is to be considered the equivalent of a one person/one vote nationwide election - does not cross the writers head. Indeed I am certain the writer realizes disproportional delegates to black areas to reward them for past loyal voting for Dems was the reason Obama played the race card to move the vote split in those areas from post Iowa 70/30 to the current 90/10 - a doubling of the spread and all it took was acting like the Clintons were racists (the in control of supporters Obama line was dropped by Obama when his supporters went over the line 4 weeks later - but that was after the media and the black community had been sold on the need to bond against any "Uncle Tom"). And disproportional value of votes is not democracy - as can be seen by Hillary winning states but not winning the extra delegates you would expect.

[aquart]

1. You only just noticed?

You missed the weeks of headlines telling Hillary supporters to go to hell? Bitching about the loss of funding because OTHER people noticed they were only an adjunct of the Obama campaign?

They don't just drink the Koolaid. They bathe in it, too.

[papau]

5. I tire easily these days - and limit my on computer time - so my Buzzflash visit was the first in

about a year -

It was also my last until after the election.

[aquart]

8. I'm sorry about your tiring.

I hope it is something you can fix or live with?

[KoKo]

7. I was shocked when Buzz did that..I thought Karlin had lost his mind until

I remembered that "Karlin & Associates" is a Chicago based Public Relations firm. Maybe they got a big contract from Obama Campaign or supporters of Obama.

It's disturbing to see them bias their coverage like that. I've been reading them since they started in 2000 and never seen anything like the abrupt turn around when they pretty much told Hillary supporters to get the hell off. And I'm neither an Obama nor Hillary supporter...but want them both to duke it out to the Convention. My candidate was Gore, Kucinich, Edwards. But, it was really disappointing to see a site I thought had done so much good for Democrats and been so fair in the past turn like that. I miss what they used to be...leaves a big hole in political coverage. Even Josh Marshall is Obama all the time, and slanted headlines against Hillary. Josh had said he though Clinton was a pretty good President a couple months ago...and then the coverage changed. Who does he get HIS funding from? :shrug:

I guess it always comes down to "follow the money." :-(

[aquart]

9. No, I'm pretty sure the site lost money over it.

Those harangues were really bitter.

[KoKo]

12. So who is funding it now? Only Obama supporters?

:shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. Cool. Thanks. I must check it out.

as for Hillary's bullying, underhandedness, I don't think anyone needs a website to see that. Just watch Wolfson today.

[aquart]

11. You'll be very happy there.

Truth is no longer an issue for any of you.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. sure it does. Unfortunately, hill's team has a passing acquaintance with

what the word "truth" represents

[leftofcool]

3. You can lump most of these places in with the MSM

They like to bash Hillary. They have been doing it for years. I think she handles it with quite a bit of dignity and grace, after all, you do get used to it. It's no different here. The Fox dimwit O'Reilly was talking about this last night.

[featherman]

4. Good news... I'll add it to my favorites

[aquart]

10. Yes, bias is what the Obama people like.

Bias good. Racism bad.

Sometimes it's hard to keep it straight.

[Uben]

6. I haven't been there in a couple of years

I hate the format they have, and of course anything they have, we have here first!

I still haven't figured out why so many have hopped aboard the Obama wagon, but something is appealing to them. They must have bought into the "hope and change" thing, but every candidate promises that, and I don't see how he thinks he can institute change any better than anyone else has. Presidents alone just don't have that power. I believe it takes coalitions in congress to get this done and I think Clinton is better at this than Obama. She sure has more experience at doing it. IF some of you can show me where Obama has a record of building coalitions to pass legislation on a national basis, I'd be happy to take a look at it.


The words hope and change are just that....words....if there is no action associated with it I really do like Obama, and will have no problem voting for the man, but there is obviously something there I am missing. When people like Ted Kennedy are backing him, there is either something there or Kennedy is backing him to spite Clinton, which I believe is the case.

[golddigger]

13. Hell, it's gone from Democratic underground to Obama Underground here!