He didn’t know much of anything about the primary itself, but he knew a lot about how it played with people he knows.

He didn’t exactly leave us with the impression that the press had a credible point of view.

Dr. Somerby, paging Dr. Bob Somerby.

I’m pulling for success because I have a pretty good idea of what failure might look like. I figure the scale and scope of the collective disaster would probably transcend current partisan politics.

My intention in all of my questions is to get a feeling for what drives Thomas as a journalist. How did he approach the primary? How did other “top” journalists approach the primary? I’m hoping the answers to these questions can help me understand what happened during the primary. I’m pretty convinced that historians are going to eviscerate the journalists coverage, but I’m interested in the thought processes that led to the outcome.

Failure is what he wants. He rationalizes this by equating the President’s success with the overturning of all conservative principles–presumably as exemplified in the thinking of Rush Limbaugh. Apparently the fact that such a failure would mean unprecedented economic hardship for millions of Americans is completely beside the point.

LMAO. As if he is the only one doing it.

LMAO as if the right is the only group doing it.

LMAO as your selective indignation, knowing no bounds, brings you to this website to post under pretense of having some sort of objective view of politics, pseudo-cynic.

LMAO as you’re no centrist or even a former HRC supporter or even a cynical critic of this blog but are indeed an Oblahblahbot in a somewhat opaque disguise that only fools the ones you have aligned yourself with.

LMAO. You’re outed.

Another: Much was said about Hillary Clinton’s supposedly “negative” campaign. How does the media determine when certain campaigns are “going negative”? For example, Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad didn’t mention any other candidate, yet it was considered to be one of the most negative of the campaign, even including the charges of racism.

Another: The Columbia Journalism Review analyzed the coverage of the various candidates and found that Hillary Clinton received about 50-50 positive-negative coverage while Obama received about 80% positive coverage. How do supposedly unbiased news sources justify those numbers?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/transcript-rush-limbaughs-address-cpac/

Failure is what he wants. He rationalizes this by equating the President’s success with the overturning of all conservative principles–presumably as exemplified in the thinking of Rush Limbaugh. Apparently the fact that such a failure would mean unprecedented economic hardship for millions of Americans is completely beside the point.

This is just so we all know what the questioner brings to the table.

A very simple question: Do you think History will judge the media kindly for their behavior during the primary? Why or why not?

I rather doubt it. Her opponent, That One, made every effort to discredit WJC and the progress made during his administration. He distanced himself from the real Democrats and pandered to Republicans by dropping Reagan’s name whenever it was advantageous to him. He also misrepresented himself and HRC throughout the campaign, including resorting to lies. His own background is to this day a complete unknown with the exception of some anecdotal evidence. Apparently he didn’t do much living until he ran for President. Yeah, right, and I’m a three-toed sloth.

That One, in all honesty, was and is a con-man, a used-car salesman, a carpet bagger, and a panderer all rolled into one slimy whole. I wouldn’t trust him with my garbage cans and the contents therein.

Bush was on his way to being the epitome of what constitutes the worst in a President. That One will make him look like a piker in comparison.

We’re screwed.