That's right fight fans. Mean Gene Oakerlund's live with Hillary "Rowdy" Clinton who's got some tough words for Barack "Superfly" Obama...

During Bill Clinton's administration I often wrote about what I called "the professional wrestling tactics of American politics," in which sound bites were used to challenge opponents, often not on substance, but for the purpose of making the news. When Bill Clinton shut down the government because partisanship brought Washington to their knees, it was the culmination of these types of tactics. Name calling diluted our national conversation.

Hillary, stuck in the 90's, played the role of "Rowdy" Roddy Piper today.  "I'll see you in Ohio," just needed to be followed by Hulk Hogan's name.  She's still hung up on these political games that so many Americans are flocking to Obama in hopes of ending.

His response was cool, collected, honest and completely derailed her tantrum.  The big question is if or not anyone will cover it as much as her pro-wrestling cage rattling was.  

The media hasn't been quick to respond with all of the false statements HRC made about BHO in her mailings. They barely covered her "plagiarized" lines after her Xerox comment.  Most of America never saw Michelle Obama's explanation of her American pride comments. Still, Obama's picking up donors, Superdelegates and most importantly, votes. He's on his way to the title belt.

There's an energized electorate at work here, who seem to be researching their own opinions. Both for her and for him. They can't be convinced one way or the other.  --But the mainstream media still controls much of the conversation in this country. There are plenty of Americans who buy into sound bites. These pro-wrestling tactics could work for Hillary, as they did for many politicians 15 years ago, if the truth is not also covered in the media.

Tomorrow morning's "news" programs will  be interesting and somewhat important. I'll look forward to TPM's weekly wrapup video.  The debate next week could very well be full of sound bites like what HRC said today.

I think it's important for Obama to stay on message and not stoop to her style of candor. I don't see how she'll make up the delegate spread. Her tactics only stand to divide and weaken the party. Standing cool and calm to her can help build a wall against that. Be Presidential, Mr. Obama.  There's no need for a steel cage match, when you're so close to the championship belt.  She just wants to hit you with a chair to make it harder for you to move around the ring on your way to the main event.

Why isn't the media reporting that after claiming Obama plagiarized lines in a speech, Hillary used one of her husbands and then closed the night with one of John Edwards'?

And she calls Barack Obama a Xerox for using lines from his campaign co-chair? HYPOCRITE.

Let's be clear. Like what Josh posted on the front page, I don't think there's anything wrong with using the lines. I normally would be glad to hear any candidate, even HRC say these things. I just think she was wrong to try and manufacture an issue against her opponent.

I especially think it's wrong that CNN, MSNBC and hordes of other news outlets are broadcasting the Xerox zinger without the balance of bringing these points to light.

Clearly, for all their complaining about the media's treatment of HRC, Clinton's camp is the most favored in coverage. They quickly report any scandal on Obama or McCain, but have yet to this year do any Clinton scandals.

Sure, they covered the race baiting and I'm sure some Clinton fans can find some other minor things, but with the myriad of meaty Clinton scandals out there (earmarks to campaign contributors, how she was the only first lady to ever have criminal charges brought against her, various fundraising snafus, misrepresentation of her record) it'd be nice to see some fair and balanced dirt-digging.

This is not a blog, it is a link to this article:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/ss083.htm
which compares our current campaign season to the last season of the West Wing.  I thought some of you may find it interesting as well.

I just posted this in reply to someone else's blog, but decided it was long enough to be my own...
-------------
I've only come to be an Obama supporter recently, and will confess to be one of the dreaded "anyone but Clinton voters." BUT, I find it deeply refreshing, and did even before supporting him, that someone could rise to becoming a Presidential candidate the way Obama has.  

Don't get me wrong, he has an impressive record both in education, as a community organizer, a State legislator and freshman Senator, but he's not had to make the kind of political alignments most major players have to.  Sure, he's not squeaky clean, but for a politician, he is. Vetted? He's soaring through the Clinton attack machine. For the most part he's let her play the bad cop, and has continued talking about how we can all come together to fix the nation.

I truly believe that all of this is as much of an appeal to his supporters as the "pretty speeches" his opponents criticize him for. He exemplifies a true American success story, is not covered in the grease of the political machine, and is honest with us that it will take all of us to make real change and that the President doesn't legislate. This is why people barely getting by write him checks. 1,000,000 people aren't all sipping latte and cashing in their trust funds.  It's 1,000,000 people from many walks of life. It's 1,000,000 people hoping to invest in a better America.

This is why independents and Republicans are supporting "the most liberal Democrat."  This is why libertarians like me are supporting a moderate like him.  We want to work towards an American political system less cluttered with partisanship and corporate influence.

We want a leader who doesn't discount us, but includes us in the hard work, and believes that we too want the best for America. We want Barack Obama, who he is and what he represents, right now.  If he doesn't get the nomination, millions of us will always wonder what would have been possible. Right now, millions of us are ready to fight to make those possibilities tangible.  Discounting our hope doesn't dissuade anyone, it makes us more vigorous.

This isn't your typical apathetic American voting audience anymore. That's why HRC's rhetoric about substance, attacks on borrowed talking points, and lies about her own record aren't sticking. We've done our homework. THAT is why we're excited. The hope stems not from speeches, but for the possibility of cleaning up our government. There's a spirit of political renaissance.  I for one am excited by how excited the general electorate is, and am hopeful that yes, indeed, we can.

TPM offered up this story from the NY Times this weekend:

"NYT: Many New York City Precincts Initially Reported Zero Votes For Obama By Eric Kleefeld - February 16, 2008, 2:59PM

A new look at the election results from Super Tuesday could end up giving Barack Obama a few more delegates from New York — it turns out that hundreds of voting machines in New York City initially reported zero votes for him, the New York Times reports, but those numbers are now finally coming in through a formal review.

The executive director of the city's Board of Elections said that while such counting errors often happen as a result of human error, "they're not usually that big."

Indeed, even a Hillary-supporting state Assemblyman said that a margin of 118-0 in one precinct "has to be a mistake."

I haven't seen this story covered anywhere else.  Is anyone looking into how this could happen?  This should be a major news item.  Especially since it happened in Clinton's "home" State, where the Governor is an avid supporter.

As a NYer, I want answers.