This is not surprising if you look at the real intent of Pat Buchanan. He wants to keep this controversy going, drive a racial wedge in this election and turn as many whites as possible against Obama. Pat and Rush have the same goals, except one has direct access to the MSM and has to be a little more carefull on TV. Pat would love nothing more than this creating some major controversy on its own (even as the expene of losing his MSNBC gig), generating a lot of MSM coverage, keeping the race issue firmly front and center, hoping this would turn more blue collar swing white voters against Obama.

Posted at March 22, 2008 4:00 PM in response to Pat Buchanan- "Slavery Brought You Black People To Christian Salvation"

I disagree. You are overlooking the first and most offensive part of his statements and focusing only on the second part. If he had only said ``People could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics'', you could make your arguments.
But he said first "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country" and coupled with his second statement, this implies Obama is not part of the people who love this country and are devoted its interests.
In other words, he is not as patriotic as McCain and Hillary because of "all this other stuff".
That's pretty low from a democrat towards another democrat, even lower than the commander in chief threshhold comment by Hillary, in my opionion.

Posted at March 22, 2008 3:50 PM in response to Bill Clinton's Comment Fair

We need to separate the rules from opinions. As Pelosi said, the race is about delegates (either pledged or super), not popular vote or other measures. Those are the rules.
For Pledges delegates, there are set rules on how they are awarded and Obama leads in those. Yes, technically they can change their minds and it's within the rules etc., but he leads right now in those and Hillary has little chance of catching him.
The rest of the discussion is only opinion (not rules saying supers must do so but just opinions on what they should do). Here Pelosi is saying that should super delegates overturn the pledged delegate count, it will hurt the party. That's it and I believe it's true. Again, this has nothing to do with rules but opinion. Everybody can chime is on what super should do, including the Clinton campaign with their arguments about
large state, blue/red state, etc. and the Obama campaign with their arguments about will of the voters, elected delegates etc. It's just a pitch to sway super delegates so it's not correct to jump on somebody making either argument as wanting to change the rules.

Posted at March 16, 2008 2:20 PM in response to Big FAT Fraud by Nancy Pelosi

I took it differently.
1. She said it's a delegate race, not only pledged delegates or only superdelegates. So delegates are what matter most, not states won or popular vote.
2. She said if superdelegates overturn the will of the people, it will damage the democratic party. She did not say the rules should change, but gave her opinion that the way superdelagates vote can do damage. That's what she, as a party leader and a superdelegate is supposed to do, exercize her best judgement. Her best judgement is obviously that the pledged delegate count is very important and not overturning the pledged delegate lead is very important.
I don't see any contradiction in this or any attempt to change rules.

Posted at March 16, 2008 12:12 PM in response to Big FAT Fraud by Nancy Pelosi

"So you're arguing that if Hillary is really going to be offended by Matthews that her supporters can't point out the hypocrisy of the commentariat?"
Ferraro was are not pointing out the hypocrisy. She is engaging in the same distasteful thing the Hillary campaign is accusing others of engaging in. So the hypocrisy is on part of the Clinton supporters who engage in this. The reasoning that the media said sexist things against my candidate therefore I can say racist things against her opponent does not make sense and is not exposing anything on the part of the media.

Posted at March 12, 2008 1:28 PM in response to Geraldine Ferraro vs Chris Matthews

destor23,
If the issue is media treatment of candidates, then she could make that argument. But the issue is not the media, it's a Clinton supporter. Why does Ferraro (or anybody else) think her reasoning is OK to use in a racial context but Matthews reasoning is not OK to use in a gender context? After all, it's not valid to say I can make denigrating comments about somebody because another person made denigrating comments about somebody else, is it?
And if one thinks Gerraro's comments are not denigrating Obama, how can they argue Chris Matthews comments are denigrating Hillary?
Taking it further, if one believes Chris Matthews comments are so offensive to merit the strongest condemnation, as the Clinton Campaign does, how can they not do the same with Gerraro's comments. Anything else is tantamount to the Clinton camp saying it's acceptable to play politics with race but not with gender.

Posted at March 12, 2008 11:59 AM in response to Geraldine Ferraro vs Chris Matthews