You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘CDS’ tag.
I saved this leaftlet the Obama campaign was handing in 2008 because I knew it will come in handy
That leaflet that was the net change after 2 elections (1994 and 200) was circulated by the Obama campaign.
After telling Marion Berry in 2009 that this will be different than 1994 because “This time you got ME”
Well, this is what “ME” got in just one election
House
2006.11.03
 |
Senate – add one seat from last December special election – 6+1
governors
and 13 state legislatures.
8 years of the Clintons vs 2 years of Obama! With the media investigating Clinton non-stop and making Obama the Messiah little difference.
Of course, Obama doesn’t think this is his fault and is ready to compromise some moore
But the president is said to not view the Republican wave as a personal rebuke. Rather, he sees it as an indication of continued economic anxiety and an admonition for both parties to work together. Some of the “no compromise” rhetoric Republicans are using is a misreading of the public mood, a senior White House official said.
It was only Clinton’s fault back them as IACF.
And about that economic anxiety – whose job was to fix that? Clinton’s?
.
Right after the revelations about the media conspiracy to install Obama using Jurnolist, Sullivan is patting himself on the back for not being on that list
One reason I would never be on such a list, of course, is my record of non-liberalism: my loathing of the Clintons, my anti-p.c. instincts, my disdain for taboos on race and gender and sexuality on the left, my early support for what I stupidly thought would be moderate conservatism under Bush and even dumber tub-thumping for war in Iraq after the trauma of 9/11.
Let’s see if I get this: I was never part of a group whose reason to exist was to attack Hillary Clinton on daily basis because….I hate the Clintons too much.
And it gets better
I was also shocked by George Stephanopoulos’ FNC-style questioning in the primary debate, and said so in no uncertain terms. But those errors and good judgments were mine and mine alone.
This disclaimer comes after the article on Jurnoist reveals that
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
and actively worked to attack ABC and its ancors for daring to ask Obama questions.
So, what are Sully’s errors again? (besides his love of W):
Thathe hated the Clintons BEFORE some of the Jurnoists people (Conason, Tomasky, feel humbled) and he hated ABC’s anchors for not giving Obama his fluffy pillows even more.
If that is a crime, flay me with a wet noodle. Please!
In all fairness, he also has a good last sentence
But socialized groupthink is not the answer to what’s wrong with the media. It’s what’s already wrong with the media.
Too bad that everything he wrote before was explaining why he was even more group thinky than most. His whole argument amounts to
I was Jurnoist before there was a jurnoist
And he is right
Whatever gave anyone the impression KO was Obama’s spokesman?
This is a moment so rich with irony, it must be fattening. (added it to my Schadenfreude list
The guy who said someone has to take Hillary in a room and only he comes out thinks he is not Obama’s spokesperson.
The guy who praised Obama as brave for voting for FISA for standing up to his base, thinks he is not an Obama operative.
The guy who said Hillary wanted Obama assassinated as she mentioned the long RFK primary and had the Obama campaign fax his rant to all journalists think he is not an Obama operative.
The guy who, when confronted with the absurdity of this attack, defended himself “it was only for 10 minutes”
What made him have these strange delusions?
Well, it seems that when he criticized Obama’s latest bestest speech he was deluged with B0bot attack
Matthews/Olbermann getting bashed for their analysis on local
With friends like them…Someone felt entitled to loyalty. I wonder why.
So now KO is like Elephant Man screaming: I am a human being”! In his case
‘I Am Not… Any President’s Spokesman’
Sorry, Elephant Man, the appearances are so hard to get over!
The story is only made more delicious by the fact that it’s vicious Orange Cheeto training their sites on KO. And Keith, the attack dog, can’t take it. He does an Eric Cartman:
Screw you guys. I am going home!
Keith Olbermann Checks Out Of Daily Kos After Criticism From Left
here’s his huffy departure
Check, Please
Some of the funniest part, excerpted by Madiaite
You want Cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills. You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I’ll be back.
The hypocrisy. It burns. What exactly happened an year ago? They were all cheerleading – they and KO over the Heritage Foundation boon to the health insurance industry.
Concludes Mediaite
As he sticks with his ‘non-Obama-cheerleader’ position, it’s now clear there are some in this country far farther left than he is. It is a testament to the polarized American public that Olbermann would be on the outs with the Daily Kos and his liberal Twitter followers.
Concludes Not Your Sweetie: Obama managed to unite left and right with his incompetence. Jonah Goldberg, Mother Jones, Krutanhammer, Ted Rall and Keith Olberman are starting to sound the same.
Only a few loyalists remain – like W’s freepers once. Steve Colbert used to call them “backwash”
Update
– Oh look, poor Keith, they took him into a room and only the Kossacks came out.
In Bobotland they have a
as the situation is so rife with irony and hypocrisy, it’s hard for me to decide whether this is a good or a bad thing.
also, a thread on the Cheetos kerfluffle
one of the more sugnificant views:
. I was surprised to see so many at DU turn against him.
So much he has done. As a non-spokesperson, of course.
.
Milbank is flogging his CDS in this twisted column
Washington Sketch: Clinton finally ahead of Obama in popularity
.Now, everyone knows Hillary got more votes in the primary than Obama , so this “finally” only applies to the villagers, and there’s a lot of obfuscation about it
Here’s how Millbank starts it
It’s about two years too late, but Hillary Clinton has finally pulled ahead of Barack Obama.
Most of the article is laced with the usual “easy for her to” excuses we’ve seen since the primaries.
Although Millbank does shoot himself in the foot with one finding that he doesn’t pursue to its logical conclusion
Previous secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were both more popular than their boss, President George W. Bush. But such a trend is not universal: Warren Christopher didn’t have ratings as high as his boss, President Bill Clinton.
Hmmm, can you see the hidden pattern here, kids? The little flaw in the media narrative on both Clintons? Could it be they were ALWAYS more popular not just than Warren Cristopher, but W, jr.jr and others Milbank &friends tried to elevate above them? Truth is a daughter of time and it seems to be coming to surface from the gusher of snark.
Millbank concludes waving his CDS up high
Few could have imagined back in that prior life that the controversial and polarizing first lady would someday win the favor of two-thirds of her countrymen.
Yet, with all those fits of pique and venom, the article went big (and surprising) in B0botland
PUMA and PUMA 2.0 seem to be joining up:
The apologists’s huffing is rudely interrupted
. How can that be possible?
Hell, just last week he put those pesky unions in their place!
and it gets better:
7. I am hoping she challenges him in 2012..She definitely
So much so that an apologist asks an obvious question
LOL. Fighting all sides. Sheesh.
and gets n obvious answer
44. I think they got run off for being PUMAS.
And someone replies to the old “they aren’t that different meme”
58. With one difference
On revisiting, in order to “protect the community” that comment has since been removed.
Someone even evaluates Millbank’s scribbling correctly
0. Milbank’s article is snarky.
although a fer take comfort in th snark.
and more Hillary supporters dare to show up
18. That’s who I voted for!
A better read than Millbank’s little piece of snark .
Not Your Sweetie 
Recent Comments