April 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton’s 10-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary should put to rest the wishful thinking of Barack Obama’s campaign that the United States has slid painlessly into some “new politics” that can transcend character smears and McCarthyistic tactics, the sort of ugliness that has defined U.S. elections for the past two decades.
Some political observers had hoped that the painful results for the nation from two decades of this style of politics – including the disastrous two-term presidency of George W. Bush – would have convinced the public that a change was needed; that the old tactics wouldn't work anymore.
7 comments:
I wondered how long it'd take for you to post your post-Pennsylvania screed.
MSM has its problems, that's for certain.
But, you are so filled with hatred that you have no more credibility than MSM does. It's a damned shame.
10 point victory? This is just the MSM wanting to keep the story going. Everyone said that she needed a double digit victory to stay in it. So look, she magically got it. How many people did the math? They rounded her numbers up and his numbers down. The Margin was 9.2%. I guess that's double digit but one of the digits is to the right of the decimal point. The MSM LIES TO US TO KEEP THE FIGHT GOING!!! This is their only hope to keep a corporatist government in power to enrich themselves and to screw the people. What really pisses me off is that many progressive sites just repeat the MSM "results" and then try to tell us why it happened, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Start with some good research and then you won't have to explain lies.
Jim says:
The "double-digit" canard can be dispelled so easily by noting the following:
A win is a win is a win!
And with that win comes the momentum.
That's what the media senses.
10 million people saw the last debate. Is it any wonder that Obama doesn't want another one? He's trying to make the case that people are tired of debates. 10 MILLION people weren't tired were they?
Getting to know you... getting to know all about you.
Shouldn't Parry be required to end his comments with the standard, "This commentary has been approved by the Omaba For President Campaign?"
Since when is Bob Parry not allowed to write what he wants about Hillary? What the heck is wrong with you commenters taking Parry to task for the freedom to write honestly about Hillary? I imagine all of you have been spending an equal amount of time at bigger media outlets criticizing them. People, and journalists are allowed to take a position you ignorant and naieve commenters.
"Since when is Bob Parry not allowed to write what he wants about Hillary?"
Who said he couldn't write what he wished?
I merely stated the obvious.
Brenda, since when did anyone suggest that Mr. Parry couldn't write about any topic or person he chooses?
You jump to conclusions based on your POV -- just as he does when it pertains to "certain" topics.
Please read for content!
Post a Comment