"Hardball Tactics Seem Like Gentle Kisses"

This is what you and your professional ilk [nice term, eh] will be saying before the general election is over. How could we ever have called the kid gloves treatment the Clintons took with Obama and his supporters, hardball?

Well, it's pretty simple. Most of the press deliberately interpreted [if that's what you want to call outright political spin] everything in such as way as to polish Obama's apple and claim that Hillary's was worm-ridden. Press spin maintained that if she dared to run any sort of competitive race then she was automatically running a hardball race and, speaking of race . . . WAS BEING RACIST.

You [as in the press in general] know she didn't. But you don't care. You -- the press in general -- helped throw the race into Obama's hands and now you are smugly satisfied.

Wise people pointed out at the very beginning that a dream match up for the press was a McCain/Obama race. The republicans and Hillary Supporters watched the press deliberately set out to make THEIR dream come true. So, again, congratulations.

There was another article [we know that only the opinions of your fellow professionals matter to you] pointing out how the obviously biased actions of the press during this nomination would come back to haunt them. It will, you know. How many hits do you think the press in this nation can take to their reputations and still keep on trudging away?

There is a reason that the Internet is gradually eating away at the press' stranglehold on the news and its interpretation and this IS NOT because you somehow refrain from dressing up your more comely news females like professional hookers [as of yet, that is]. More often than not you can only find both sides of the story by going on-line and digging for it, and usually only after REALLY digging hard for it. Press bias has become just that pervasive and obvious.

You do recall all those promises of embedded reporting slots for which the nation's journalists and pundits sold the citizens down the river for the Bush Administration for? Sure you do. You recall the backlash to the profession when people realized what you had done? Sure you do.

Well the 'fix' your fellow journalists put in for this nomination process is just more of the same and harks back to the marked preference that the mass media showed for G.W. Bush against Al Gore, effectively becoming cheer leaders for what has arguably turned out to be the worst president in the history of this nation.

The press decided to help the DNC hand the nomination over to Obama and it's rather unlikely that mainstream democrats are going to just shrug that off. Something has to give somewhere at some time in the citizen's tolerance for the mass media's extreme political biases in these national elections. I rather suspect that huge numbers of mainstream democrats are going to walk away from the Democratic Party over this obvious and deliberate collusion by the press and the DNC to hand Obama the nomination.

But hey, you keep on keeping on. It's not as if YOU personally are a real news journalist willing to tackle the hard issues on a consistent basis. Hell, if you had been, we'd have known it by now.

Gatewood, you are getting funnier by the day. Thanks for the early morning laugh.

Something I've noticed - something we've all noticed - is that no matter which side you're on, you're utterly, absolutely 100% convinced the press is biased toward the other side. It's the one thing we all agree on, ironically.

You toss your comfortable platitude around as if it were stone cold fact. We KNOW that the national press suddenly shut up about the possible negatives just before the war started and about the Bush Administration LIES regarding starting a war with Iraq BECAUSE of the promise of embedded reporting slots.

After the fact many journalists admitted just that. John Dickerson, in fact, wrote several articles lamenting the regrettable pro-war bias his fellow professionals suddenly developed the moment they discovered that embedded reporting slots were theirs for the taking . . . for cooperation.

After the 2000 elections, many journalists admitted the prevailing media bias for G.W. Bush.

So your insistence upon clinging to a platitude demonstrates only that you enjoy seeing YOUR candidate win and are not the least bit interested in the concept of ethics in journalism. Ahem UNTIL the press switches [as they currently are projected to do] sides after the Obama nomination and then they begin treating HIM as if he was the scuzzball-queen, Hillary Clinton.

There is a reason why Obamacrats are being treated as if they were mindless children on these fray boards. Stop living DOWN to your well-earned reputations.

Wood:

You really should think about dropping out. The party is urging you. And, you're starting to look pathetic.

told me the same thing as I methodically laid out precisely how and why he was being maneuvered by the GOP AND a biased news media for a loss.

People like you [people incapable of independent reasoning] mocked me then. Mysteriously, however, they all vanished after I was proven correct right right down the line. Isn't that interesting?

I am resigned to the fact that a certain type of [the majority of] political junkie cannot reason their way through a wet paper bag. Invariably this is because they allow pundits to do their thinking for them while aligning themselves with the emotional junkies residing within their own political peer group.

I'm ALWAYS mocked and then I'm ALWAYS proven to have been correct after the fact. That's just the way these things go.

Gatewood:

told me the same thing as I methodically laid out precisely how and why he was being maneuvered by the GOP AND a biased news media for a loss.

People like you [people incapable of independent reasoning] mocked me then. Mysteriously, however, they all vanished after I was proven correct right right down the line. Isn't that interesting?

I am resigned to the fact that a certain type of [the majority of] political junkie cannot reason their way through a wet paper bag. Invariably this is because they allow pundits to do their thinking for them while aligning themselves with the emotional junkies residing within their own political peer group.

I'm ALWAYS mocked and then I'm ALWAYS proven to have been correct after the fact. That's just the way these things go.

Crazy people always believe these things--that they are somehow infallible, or rather, the only ones who truly know (insert idea here).

People like you [people incapable of independent reasoning] mocked me then.

This line is really getting old, you use it constantly, and only to the effect of proving that it perfectly illustrates your mentality.

You are the embodiment of the Clinton supporter cliche: stubborn, ill-informed, thinks they are a victim.

Yada, yada, blah, blah.

As Clinton does, you bring it all on yourself, and you are unable to see/admit it.

to your emotionalism is rejected out of hand. I get that. As this IS the thought processes of the average Obamacrat I would not expect anything different from you.

In fact you are horrified that I may again be proven correct for the reasons stated. Uh . . . I was ALSO one of the early warning voices against the Iraq War for the very reasons that it has since been proven to have been such a baaaaaaaad idea.

I have a marvelous track record of being correct in my predictions. So you stick with your pie-in-the-sky fantasies and I will stick with political reality.

I was ALSO one of the early warning voices against the Iraq War for the very reasons that it has since been proven to have been such a baaaaaaaad idea.

And singular in that voice, I'm sure you were. Amongst whom? Your buddies?

Shitloads of people had that same "feeling." Get over your self.