Maya Angelou supports Clinton

[metta 0]

'SHEROES'

"When she came to Washington, D.C. as the first lady, the wife of the president, I said let me look at this girl a little longer, and I watched her," she said, adding that she had seen Clinton as "a woman in stress, in difficulty" covered on the front pages.

At times swinging her feet, Angelou talked about Clinton's work while in the White House, joking about the then first lady's comments about baking cookies.

"I said 20 years ago, if this woman ever runs for anything, I'll put my hand on her back," she said to cheers. "I have done so, I do so now and shall do so."

The author mentioned that a daughter of hers was supporting Obama and said she was proud of that, but said she had found her candidate, was sure Clinton was in it for the long run and that she would be with her for it all.Maya Angelou

[SaadBell 0]

I don't believe that, Maya Angelou is a big friend of Oprah, and "The Oprah," stated she was a Obama supporter. I have to read a lot more on this.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This ain't gonna save her. She's got her own little NAFTA gate coming her way right before the PA vote. She's done.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[metta 0]

Well, check it out then.Perhaps you need a detox program

The event ended with Angelou reading what she called a prose tribute to Clinton that began with a line from another popular poem of hers, "Still I rise."

"You may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies. You may trod me in the very dirt, but still, like dust, I'll rise. This is not the first time in history you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen," Angelou said. She said Clinton would never give up and only asked that people not give up on her, borrowing a common phrase from pop culture when she said the senator had "been there, done that" and risen.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, check it out then.Perhaps you need a detox program

The event ended with Angelou reading what she called a prose tribute to Clinton that began with a line from another popular poem of hers, "Still I rise."

"You may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies. You may trod me in the very dirt, but still, like dust, I'll rise. This is not the first time in history you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen," Angelou said. She said Clinton would never give up and only asked that people not give up on her, borrowing a common phrase from pop culture when she said the senator had "been there, done that" and risen.

Hang on to that straw if it consoles you.

[metta 0]

Talking about detox, it's not just you but a large chunk of the American media needs detox.

Politico: Debate outrage proves media bias — in favor of Obama

Politico reporters John Harris and Jim VandeHei review the outrage from offended journalists over the ABC debate this week with a particularly jaundiced eye. They claim it proves exactly what they have themselves experienced in their work — starry-eyed reporters who wind up having to be “de-toxed” from their crushes on Barack Obama:

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient, and uncertain.

The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and the Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through de-tox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)

Harris and VandeHei worry that this phenomenon will damage the media industry much more than the political process. They have four main concerns about the Obama-crush they see in their colleagues, especially in the irrational vitriol that followed a debate that didn’t appreciably differ from most of the rest on both sides of the partisan divide this year. How many times did Mike Huckabee have to answer questions on evolution, for instance, or Mitt Romney about his gardeners and his Mormonism? The concerns are:

• The adoption of personal points of view in reporting news
• The rise and influence of a “liberal echo chamber”
• Lines blurring between journalism and advocacy, such as with HuffPo
• A demand to cover politics in Utopian terms instead of in reality

I see the first two as much more problematic than the latter two. I don’t see much evidence that the last exists at all. Reporters sometimes report negative campaigning as somehow a new and wholly undesirable part of American politics, but they do report it. The Huffington Post is an impressive enterprise, and has a few writers from the traditional media on its staff, but it is a blog and not a major media outlet. It doesn’t even have all that much pretense at objective reporting as opposed to relentlessly left-wing commentary, and so most people know exactly what they get when they read HuffPo.

However, Harris and VandeHei nail it with the first entry on the list. Too many reporters want to either make themselves a part of the story, with Keith Olbermann as the most egregious example. No one thinks reporters should be mindlessly hostile, but they should avoid personal connections with their subjects if they expect to have their work taken seriously. Fawning sycophantry can be read at the candidates’ websites easily enough; readers shouldn’t have to endure it in the news sections of their local newspapers.

And if we needed a confirmation of the existence of these fawning sycophants, the media reaction the two Politico reporters describe provides it. Instead of remembering that reporters are paid to ask tough questions about open issues to government officials and political candidates, these “journalists” would rather that ABC had left them unaddressed entirely. These same voices uttered nary a peep during earlier Republican debates that featured silliness after silliness.

VandeHei went through his detox. Apparently most of the American media needs to find their way to a rehab center for shills in the near future.

[RonMay 1]

im no expert on this fact but one time on the TYRA BANKS show, im not sure when exactly, probably early this year or last dec. that Hillary guested on that show and was ask by tyra how she felt about Oprah sided on Obama (or something like that)... she said (and im not quoting on this but just rephrasing to what she said) that its ok, and that Maya Angelu is on her side anyways... if i misremember, then shoot me lol... but im almost positive i heard this comment way way back even before the caucuses has started to get crazy...

not into politics much but just something i can share about on this particular issue

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Talking about detox, it's not just you but a large chunk of the American media needs detox.

You are actually the one needing some detox. And you'll soon enough get it when Hillary's candidacy officially falls in May.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, check it out then.Perhaps you need a detox program

You never answered my question awhile ago as to how you imagine Hillary will get the nomination given that there's no statistical way for her to catch up to Obama's lead by the end of the Primaries? Based on the polls and stats, Obama is estimated to be within 100 delegates shy of 2,025 needed to secure the nomination by the end of the Primaries. Compound that with Howard Dean telling the remaining 300 or so superdelegates that are noncommited to make up their minds now and choose their candidate so this doesn't go all the way to the Convention...so metta, my question to you is, how is Hillary going to win the nomination???

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Democrats in-fighting will be a reason for McCain's victory in November. Just a thought. Kerry lost hands down in 04 to a war that would later become one of the key issues to elect Democrats due to its unfavorability among the general populous.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Democrats in-fighting will be a reason for McCain's victory in November. Just a thought. Kerry lost hands down in 04 to a war that would later become one of the key issues to elect Democrats due to its unfavorability among the general populous.

I disagree. All polls have shown how out of favor Americans are with the direction our country is heading and want change. The three months between the Democratic Convention and the Presidential Election will seem like forever and Americans will have long forgotten about the infighting between Hillary and Obama. Just look how the Republican Party was severely splintered up until McCain looked like the clear winner. There was a lot of talk about some Republicans leaving the Party rather than support McCain. The Democratic Party will come together on two key issues that will be the daggers of death in the Republican Party's attempt at holding onto the WH for another 4 years...the economy and the war in Iraq. Those two issues are the two biggest issues on the minds of voters and they haven't forgotten which Party got them into those two messes.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I don't disagree with that and by "will be reason" is dependent on how long it takes for the crats to decide who the nomination goes to. Right now, the polls are positive for McCain, but those would change when the crats decide on one candidate. This should have been decided over a month ago, because wasting millions of dollars on campaigning makes you wonder if more limits should be placed on campaign funds.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't disagree with that and by "will be reason" is dependent on how long it takes for the crats to decide who the nomination goes to. Right now, the polls are positive for McCain, but those would change when the crats decide on one candidate. This should have been decided over a month ago, because wasting millions of dollars on campaigning makes you wonder if more limits should be placed on campaign funds.

Agreed. The uselessly dragged on infighting doesn't help a bit. Everyone but Hillary knows that. But then, since she won't be the nominee in 2008, she'd be more interested in a McCain presidency so that she could make a come-back in 2012. Cashing in on her perceived entitlement is all that really matters to her. Not a thing more.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't disagree with that and by "will be reason" is dependent on how long it takes for the crats to decide who the nomination goes to. Right now, the polls are positive for McCain, but those would change when the crats decide on one candidate. This should have been decided over a month ago, because wasting millions of dollars on campaigning makes you wonder if more limits should be placed on campaign funds.

Agreed. The uselessly dragged on infighting doesn't help a bit. Everyone but Hillary knows that. But then, since she won't be the nominee in 2008, she'd be more interested in a McCain presidency so that she could make a come-back in 2012. Cashing in on her perceived entitlement is all that really matters to her. Not a thing more.

I'm curious to know metta's answer to my question. George Stephanopolis should've asked Hillary in last week's debate how she plans to win the nomination? I'd love to know the answer.

[metta 0]

I don't disagree with that and by "will be reason" is dependent on how long it takes for the crats to decide who the nomination goes to. Right now, the polls are positive for McCain, but those would change when the crats decide on one candidate. This should have been decided over a month ago, because wasting millions of dollars on campaigning makes you wonder if more limits should be placed on campaign funds.

Agreed. The uselessly dragged on infighting doesn't help a bit. Everyone but Hillary knows that. But then, since she won't be the nominee in 2008, she'd be more interested in a McCain presidency so that she could make a come-back in 2012. Cashing in on her perceived entitlement is all that really matters to her. Not a thing more.

I'm curious to know metta's answer to my question. George Stephanopolis should've asked Hillary in last week's debate how she plans to win the nomination? I'd love to know the answer.

At this point, both candidates will run short of 2025 necessary to clinch the nomination with pledged delegates.

So both Clinton and Obama will have to make their arguments to supers that he/she is the best choice.

Curently, Obama has the edge with lead in pledged and popular votes (without Florida and Michigan)

Now with 10 states left to go, 300 supers remain uncommited despite Dean's plea.

What does that say?

As dem voters in the remaining (10) states wait for their turn to cast their votes, so do uncommitted supers who are wait to make their decisions notwithstanding the Kool-Aid-induced demands/tantrums to stop the democratic process in its track and crown their messiah.