Skip to main content

I've been listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America for a long time.  Her show is entertaining and Randi has usually had a solid command of the facts -- she likes to brag about how well-informed she is, and until recently that was reflected in her rhetoric. Which is why I have no choice now but to conclude that over the last several weeks she has been intentionally misleading her listeners with a barrage of lies and absurd speculation.

Randi finally admitted last Friday that she's supporting Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, something that had become obvious recently to even casual listeners, despite her frequent claims of neutrality. That's fine. It's her show and her perogative to support a candidate. But it's not okay for her to lie and mislead her listeners in order to bring down a Democratic candidate. Randi Rhodes is damaging her own reputation and damaging Air America.

Here are a few things that Randi Rhodes has said about Hillary Clinton in the past couple of weeks:

Hillary Clinton broke a "pledge" to remove her name from the Michigan ballot.

Hillary Clinton campaigned in Florida prior to the state's primary.

Hillary Clinton is responsible for the "Obama is a Muslim" email that has been circulating.

Hillary Clinton is "not exactly a Democrat".

Hillary Clinton intends to run as an independent candidate in the general election.

I only hear Randi Rhodes for about 45 minutes each evening during my drive home from work, so I have no idea if this is a comprehensive list. But even if there's nothing else, it's enough to characterize Rhodes as the Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

Her comment about Hillary Clinton campaigning in Florida was made at least twice. Perhaps she was confusing the two candidates:

Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

And, of course, there was also Obama's ad campaign:

The Obama campaign today began airing paid television advertisements in a national cable buy that include advertising in the state of Florida. There is no question that these ads are a clear and blatant violation of the early-state pledge that Senator Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates signed last year.

Among the list of prohibited activities are "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state." (According to Nielsen, there are 6,6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92% of all Florida TV households.) The Obama campaign knows this, but has chosen to violate the pledge regardless.

Is Randi Rhodes that misinformed on this issue?

And what about her accusation that Hillary had broken a pledge to take her name off the ballot in Michigan? There was no pledge and no DNC requirement. Where is Randi getting this stuff?

Just last Friday, Randi told her listeners that she could no longer stay quiet about the tactics of the Clinton campaign and included in her litany of complaints the "Obama is a Muslim" email. Does Randi have any evidence that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with that email? If not, it was beyond irresponsible for her to make that charge.

Also last week, a caller complained to Randi that Hillary is behaving like a Republican. Randi's response? "Well, she's not exactly a Democrat." That just stupid. But it's gotten worse.

Today, Randi stated that she really believes that Hillary plans to run as an independent in the general election. And Randi couldn't leave it as speculation. "She will pull a Lieberman. She will run as an independent." This is just absurd. It's nothing more than a smear. And then Randi took it one step further, leaving no doubt that she has imbibed the Obama kool-aid. Randi Rhodes believes that faced with the [imaginary] prospect of Hillary running as an independent, that Obama may take her offer to be the VP (even if he's guaranteed the nomination), rather than risk splitting the Democratic vote and handing the White House to McCain. Yes, St. Barack will sacrifice his own presidential prospects and give up the nomination to stop the Monster Hillary's great conspiracy. Simply insane.

It's really time for somebody at Air America to give Randi Rhodes a reality check. If she's lying, she needs to stop. If she's just extremely misinformed, she needs to spend some time educating herself before going on the radio and misleading her listeners. Enough is enough.

Originally posted to ryeland on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:21 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well... (25+ / 0-)

    From your list, the only thing that is wrong is the speculation about her running as an indie. I don't think she would do that.

    Everything else is either true, or opinion.

    She didn't break a pledge to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, but she took a pledge to NOT participate in the contests of any state that violated the DNC rules. And she said she was only leaving her name on the ballot because it "wouldn't count for anything."

    She held several events in Florida shortly before the primaries. Technically they were fundraisers but she did get media coverage and she made several comments about Florida's votes counting.

    Some of her campaign managers were caught distributing the Muslim smear. She herself pointedly did not try to debunk the smear when given the chance.

    So yeah..sounds about right.

    Pennsylvania=Iowa. It won't even be close!

    by jenontheshore on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM PDT

  •  Re: the Muslim email ... (24+ / 0-)

    It was sent to Randi Rhodes by an Iowa County chair of the Clinton campaign.
    I don't have time to go over your diary point by point as I am going to bed but perhaps other readers will enlighten you further on some of your other complaints.

  •  I'm sorry but those "fundraisers" (23+ / 0-)

    where she was demanding Florida to be seated, that wasn't in keeping with the spirit of the pledge. Clinton's campaign has been horrible about playing by the rules.

    •  again (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee
      Hidden by:
      distraught

      Fundraisers were not prohibited. Holding a press conference afterwards was prohibited. Basic facts.

      Our Republic and its Press will rise or fall together -Joseph Pulitzer

      by ryeland on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaveV, fabacube, John Poet

        We know her intent, and complaining about Obama when he was running ads with the express permission of the Democratic Party, is laughable. Had she had the money to do it, she would've been doing the same damn thing, and everyone here knows it.

      •  Generally a person (6+ / 0-)

        is on shaky ground when they resort to legalisms and technicalities to defend their argument.  It means you've entered the "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" territory, and is viewed as exceedingly dishonest.  She knew what she was doing when she held a fundraiser there, you knew, I know...  We all know.  The administration might want to call certain things "interrogation techniques", but they're still torture.  Likewise in this situation.  Lipstick on a pig doesn't make it any less a pig.  One of the things I detest most about the Clinton campaign is resorting to these sorts of technicalities and dishonest renamings.

  •  wow , SOOO many people need "a reality check" ? (20+ / 0-)

    the list just grows longer everyday, doesn't it?;) Watch what you say, you too could soon be on the wrong side of Hillary Clinton and then you'll be on the outs too. When Pat Buchanan is on your side and you're attacking Randi Rhodes, you aren't making a strong case that you are a true Democrat.  

    I will not cast a vote to validate a stolen election.

    by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM PDT

    •  what is it with Obama supporters (6+ / 0-)

      making judgments about who is and isn't a a true Democrat?

      Our Republic and its Press will rise or fall together -Joseph Pulitzer

      by ryeland on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:32:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is it with Clinton (13+ / 0-)

        acting like she's not a true Democrat?

      •  when you start attcking (6+ / 0-)

        other Dems as her campaign and supporters are doing , and when you start attacking air america and it's hosts and when Pat Buchanan is one of few defending you , then you really do need to pause for a reality check and you really do need to stop and think about  how you got there and what it says . Dems who attack air america are questionable , at best. So yes, I do hitherto decree and declare, I know Democrats, I am a Democrat , I know how Democratic politics work, and  Hillary Clinton is no Democrat.  

        I will not cast a vote to validate a stolen election.

        by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  then so isn't Obama (0+ / 0-)

          because he voted for the Cheney energy policy and wants to go to war with Pakistan. After all, he works with Republicans so well as he and his commercials brag, maybe he IS a Republican. What do you mean "attack Air America?" You sound like a conservative who says if you attack Bush, you are "attacking America."

          •  I'm Bush (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gator Keyfitz, tonyfv

            I admit it . I can't help it . I want a candidate that voted for bad bill one time and is talking about actually getting the people who actually caused 9/11 whether they be in Afghanistan or  in a military dictatorship like Pakistan. I am a revealed for all the blogosphere to see as a miscreant on par with George W. Bush. Rhandi Rhodes and Keith Olbermann are like Bill Orally , the Democratic party is the appropriate place for race baiting and fearmongering , I am George Bush and Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat.
            (can I add  a snark tag somewhere , here?)

            I will not cast a vote to validate a stolen election.

            by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so if Obama doesn't end the war, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              invisiblewoman

              when he takes office, what do you say then? Is he Bush III, or is it OK cuz he is not a Clinton? what are you gonna say when his presidency isn't some big liberal paradise, and isn't perfect?

              Why is Jesse Jackson jr.'s remarks about Hillary not crying for black people ok, but a simply pointing out that political will that LBJ had, not just MLKs speeches gave us civil rights is all of a sudden RACIST? Obama's camp clearly played the race card in every imaginable way

              •  so crystal ball of fortune please tell me (0+ / 0-)

                what the future will hold as predictions are so in vogue right now (not to mention soooo right on).
                IF IF IF . If Hillary Clinton and some other Dems had stood up (like some of 'little people' before the idiot started this war) then it wouldn't be a question now would it ? And if racism wins Pennsylvania , I will fight like hell to get my party back from the new Dixiecrats . And if fortune telling worked, my aunt Zelda would be a rich woman indeed.

                I will not cast a vote to validate a stolen election.

                by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i hope you voted for Kerry in 04 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobswern

                  even tho he is as bad as Hillary in ur book over Iraq. Hillary is not being racist. it was the Obama camp who even mentioned it first, after Hillary rightfully pointed out that political will gave us civil rights coupled with MLK, not just MLK alone. THATS when Obama surrogates threw the race card in, calling her one.

          •  Do you even listen to yourself? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pgm 01, Independant Man

            wants to go to war with Pakistan

            Christ, how many times does this have to be debunked, Sen. McCain, before you stop repeating it as true?

            "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

            DAMN F#$@ING STRAIGHT WE WILL...

            So, as long as the "gates of hell" are in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden will be safe from McCain...

          •  Um (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dantrotheplanetman

            Everything in your post is completely and totally and undeniably wrong.

            On the energy bill read this

            You parrot John McCain of all people about Pakistan:

            "But we would risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan" John McCain, February 19, 2008

            But the truth is:

            FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."

            Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.

            "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

            Barak Obama Fact Check

      •  Witnessing the Foxification of the "liberal"... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ryeland, LaEscapee, invisiblewoman

        ...wing of the Party and of this blog. They are fighting fire with fire, so to speak (actually, I'd call it fighting vapor with vapor, since there's little or nothing there). Little more than a bunch of folks getting riled up over hyperbole.

        The style has become more important than the substance--to the point where the substance becomes irrelevant. (Personally, from a historical perspective, I think this traces itself back to 1980, and the election of Ronald Reagan as President.)

        This diary and comments thread is an all-too-rare exception to the rule of the day around here!

        Thank you for posting it.

        It's to the point where discerning fact versus fiction--both here and in the MSM--is no longer a primary concern.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:42:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Personally, as far as DKos is concerned... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myboo, LaEscapee, invisiblewoman

          ...this may be more akin to Jerry Springer than Fox News. But, either way, it's the show and the audience size that are the only concerns, now.

          Reality has little to do with reality, other than being cognizant that the current "reality" is truly very, very shallow. Reality has become the veneer for an underlying substance of little value or meaning.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I Am A Obama Supporter and Listen To Randi (5+ / 0-)

        Her 'over the top' attacks on Clinton are unfortunate. Compare her to Sam Seder, Maddow or Hartmann and one can see the difference between a radio professional and a 'ranter-raver.

        Randi Rhodes needs more intellectual content and less flailing about.

        Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George

        by frandor55 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Republican or Democrat ? you decide ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Philoguy, Mia Dolan, John Poet

        Says a Democratic Presidential contender isn't qualified to be CIC.
        Uses racially charged language and insinuations for months on end .
        Cooks up an ad which appeals to fear of "something happening in the world".
        Says a major AA Dem politician is only there because he is black.
        Democrat or Republican? You decide.

        I will not cast a vote to validate a stolen election.

        by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The question is why are so many people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Poet

        have been repulsed by Hillary Clinton over the last few weeks. I was a Hillary apologist until recently. I went to a Obama meeting before the caucus on 2/19 and made my case that whoever won the nomination, it would be a historic day for America.

        I feel sick even remembering that. She has shown her true colors and what kind of "leadership" she will bring to the White House and I want no part of it.

      •  What is it with Clinton virtually endorsing (0+ / 0-)

        the Republican Presidential nominee?

        That's something that Republicans do, and Republicans certainly are not Democrats.

    •  Not to mention Rush Limbaugh (0+ / 0-)
  •  Everyone of the things you accuse her of (14+ / 0-)

    lieing about are facts.  You really need to do some research.  Clinton did in fact campaign in Fl at private fundraisers.  That's campaigning.  She really did promise to remove her name from the ballot in Michigan after promising to do so.  Her Iowa campaign guy really did release the hideous e-mail.  These are facts.  Please open your eyes.  Hillary is not who you think she is.  I truly worry about your sanity.

    Impeachment! Indictment! Incarceration!

    by followyourbliss on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:29:08 PM PDT

  •  Randi is a fun gal-----and I listen to her most (8+ / 0-)

    days.  She stated for a long time that she would remain neutral because she wanted to be in the position to push the Dem candidate, whomever it turned out to be.  
     But as this Clinton campaign unfolded, she, like so many other decent Dems, couldn't take it any more and had to speak out.  Clinton's campaign has been divisive, damaging and shameful.

  •  Michigan ballot (14+ / 0-)

    Here is some commentary of the Michigan ballot issue:

    FLINT -- Former U.S. Sen. Donald Riegle had harsh words for the only viable Democratic presidential candidate on Tuesday's primary ballot that he called "rigged" and a "manipulation by the Clinton machine."

    Riegle, who now lives in Washington D.C., stopped in his hometown of Flint on the eve of the primary Monday to encourage Democratic voters to vote "uncommitted" if they support a candidate whose name isn't on the ballot.

    That will help get delegates for the other candidates in the Democratic National Convention. Write-ins for candidates who withdrew names won't be counted.

    Riegle accused U.S. Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y of taking advantage of Michigan's early primary that broke convention rules by staying on the ballot after what he says was an agreement that all Democratic candidates withdraw names.

    "It reminds me of the old Soviet Union. This is a tactic that should not happen in a democracy," said Riegle, who also spoke in Detroit and Lansing the same day on what he said was "a scam ballot."

    "It's an absolute fraud. They very clearly waited until others had followed through with the agreement and then didn't follow through with it. This was not an accident. This is a very deliberate manipulation of the ballot."

    Edwards, Dodd, Obama and Biden all took their names off the ballot.

    •  Not the first time this happened with Michigan (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ballerina X, evdebs, paintitblue
      Gore and Bradley both removed themselves from the Michigan primary ballot in 2000 at the DNC's request.  Michigan had tried to intervene in the Iowa/NH mess.  What Obama, Edwards, etc. did was quite precedented.  
      •  Link documentation for this? (0+ / 0-)

        I have no recollection of that happening, and I live here.

        •  How the heck could you forget Lyndon LaRouche? (0+ / 0-)
          Oh wait...  he's batshit crazy.  Yeah, I could see why you might want to forget.  ;)

          Anyways, here's the primary results:

          http://www.michigan.gov/...

          Here's the results of the subsequent caucus (which was scheduled before the primary even ran):

          http://www.thegreenpapers.com/...

          Here's some recent talk about it:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          It wasn't a big deal because Gore was widely expected to clean up.  I remember it mostly because I didn't like Gore at the time and would've voted for Bradley if I could've.  :)

          •  Ok. Here's the thing: (0+ / 0-)

            Michigan has had a state-sponsored presidential primary, with a Democratic side of the ballot, since 1972 or before... but the Michigan Democrats have always ignored it since 1980 and chosen delegates in caucuses (except for 1992, when the legislature passed a one-time registration law which made the primary acceptable to the national party).

            So if the Democratic candidates kept or took their name off the Michigan Primary ballot in 2000 (which is apparantly true), it was just "business as usual" here.  We never used that primary, because it was too "open" to satisfy DNC rules.... and no delegates were allocated through it.

            That's really not comparable to what happened this time, at all.

  •  I often have issues with the solidity of Randi's (10+ / 0-)

    points but one thing is quite clear to me.

    She bent over backwards to be neutral throughout this primary season up until last week, when she just lost it. In case you haven't noticed, that's happening a lot lately. I don't think you can chalk that up to anything but the actions of the Clinton campaign.

    As for your list of points. Some are valid. Some are Randi's speculation, to which she is as entitled as you are. In some cases, she's right.

  •  Obama asked the SC pledge keeper for the "ok" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, neroden, jenontheshore
    http://thehill.com/...

    In a brief statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign consulted with South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler, one of the initiators of the pledge, who "told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [a] pledge made to the early states."

    BTW, this was right at the point where her campaign was out of money and she had to lend her campaign $5 million to keep it afloat.  At the time, I had wondered why, instead of crying foul about Obama's ads, she didn't just run ads of her own, especially if the pledge keeper said it was ok.  

  •  I tried to listen to Randy Rhodes (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, neroden, myboo, LaEscapee, Lisactal

    But I still can't understand why she thinks the constant insults to Hillary will do the party any good in the end.  Even if both candidates are being negative, we could still be positive - we could even show the pundits what we want by modeling it to them.  

    Why does support for Obama seem to be synonomous with hatred for Hillary?  I don't even think this is what Obama wants.  Is there any room to like both candidates but prefer one as a president better anymore?  

    I'm sure there are even some on the dkos site that feel this way.  I couldn't listen to her very long at all.  I felt like I was listening to Rush. But in all that time, I didn't hear any positive comments about Obama, just negative ones directed at Hillary.  

    I can only listen to Rachel Maddow or Ed these days.  

    I'm an Edwards Democrat!

    by invisiblewoman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM PDT

    •  I'm pretty sure you are wasting your time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, tonyfv, invisiblewoman

      I agree with what you are saying, but you should have seen the response to the diary referring to this. It seems a Democratic Representative from Oregon is out of bounds calling for issues to be discussed, and for both camps to focus on McBush instead of each other.

      I appreciated the manner in which you both conducted your campaigns during the early primary process. It was a manner that respected the other and tried to highlight policy differences without resorting to destructive smear campaigns.
       
      In the lead up to the March 4th primaries, the tone of both campaigns shifted and the civility that I had appreciated disappeared. The long term goal of beating the Republican nominee took a back seat to the short term goal of proving one's viability by tearing down the other Democratic candidate. We lost sight of the general election, we lost sight of the true opponent and if we continue to be shortsighted, I fear we will lose in November. The heated rhetoric between both campaigns has continued to intensify as we head into the Pennsylvania primary. While you trade barbs, McCain is uniting the Republican Party around his thinly disguised right wing agenda. In the next six weeks, McCain can sit back, amass his war chest, concentrate his base and delight as you deconstruct each other.

      I propose that you not allow him that luxury. You both claim to be better suited than the other to take on the so-called Straight-Talk Express, so prove it. Run the next six weeks of your campaign against McCain, not against the other Democrat. Go after McCain for his policy positions, not the other Democrat for theirs. Allow the Democratic voters to believe in a campaign that can provide a new direction for this country and stop McCain from continuing the failed policies of the Bush Administration. In the end, it is the candidate who can take the fight to McCain and win that deserves my support and, most importantly, the support of the Democratic Party.

      Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

      by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:56:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would agree, but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gator Keyfitz, juancito, LaEscapee

        There's only one candidate who's actually been behaving the way DeFazio complains about, and that's Clinton.

        Fake evenhandedness just insults Obama.

        -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

        by neroden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is the rub (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myboo, invisiblewoman

          How is anyone suppose to react? No matter which side anyone comes down on the half of the party who supports the other candidate will attack them. And whether anyone agrees or not with whatever has gone on, the fact remains that they have garnered virtually the same number of votes, and we will need those votes to win in November.

          A perfect example of this is a diary today reporting that Joe Trippi said he doesn't think John Edwards will endorse. Go read some of the comments tearing into JE, who isn't even in the race, and has stayed completely out of the limelight other than the two candidates going to visit him at his house. For this he gets pilloried around here.

          Somebody is going to have to say to both sides enough, but when anyone attempts just that, it either isn't enough or they are accused of being on the wrong side. So at some point people are going to have to get away from the histrionics and realize the nomination isn't the goal it is the WH.

          2 cents

          Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

          by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Off with their head. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rockwilder

    Here we go again. Everytime anyone says something not in Hillary's favor they are accused of lying.
    Now the Hillbots are attacking LIBERALS.
    It's official you have turned into Republican Monsters.

  •  I listened to her show on Friday as well as most (12+ / 0-)

    of the week.  She can run hot and cold with me.

    That said, Rhodes said Hillary held private fund raisers in Florida - which she did.

    Hillary is responsible for the Muslim email as it was sent out by two of her staffers.  Where does the buck stop?  Not will Hillary apparently.

    Add it up with the rest of the race baiting fest and it is not a stretch at all to think it was planned on purpose, much like the Obama in native garb photo.

    Regarding MI, all the top tier took their names off it but Hillary.  They considered having their names on the ballot as wrong according to the pledge they took.  Only in Hillary’s bizzaro world did Hillary think it was ok.  So she could gum up the system later on as Obama was crunching her lead.

    Her comment about Hillary not being exactly a Democrat is what many of us think these days.  Rhodes is echoing what most think considering the despicable way Hillary has run her campaign.

    Rhodes didn't say that Hillary was for sure going to run as an Indy if she didn't get the nomination.  She was merely blathering on about Hillary being so hell bent on being President that Rhodes wouldn't put it past her.

    Look.  We are not stupid here.  So let’s stop the charades, OK?

    Yes we can change. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can seize our future. - Barack Obama 01/26/08

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:38:08 PM PDT

  •  it doesn't really matter what Randi R (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, rockwilder

    says.She always says not to believe her, but one should check the facts for oneself. Her frustration about Sen. Clinton is more than a little understandable (understatement much). She is divisive and her surrogates have been offensive imho. G. Ferraro wouldn't even acknowledge her surrogate status.

    ..."For beauty," I replied. "And I for truth,-the two are one; We brethren are"... E. Dickinson

    by peagreen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM PDT

  •  You Are The Liar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, Mia Dolan, rockwilder

    She said the muslim letter came from the head of the Iowa campaign.  

    And she said she was undecided about the election until this past weekend when Hillary started the commander in chief nonsense.

    Before that she didn't endorse or favor either one.  I thought she was way too nice to Hillary.

    The Obama ad was a national buy.  And you think they can pull it on every station that may broadcast into Florida.   How many different cable stations and carriers out there.

    Rush Limabaug is backing Hillary, don't know if you heard.

    Also tonight on Hannity he was praising everything Ferraro said.

    And she is not a journalist.  Hillary is the one that tells her stormtroopers to give out lies.

  •  I've neever understood how he got away (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland

    with the "national buy" nonsense on the ads.

    He ran ads, period.

    And, can't cable companies block certain states?

    I mean they can give me showtime or not...does anyone know if it is possible?

    And why the ad buy was done if FL could not be blocked.

    Around the time of FL I heard over and over about her fundraisers and her declaration of victory but nine out of ten times no mention of his ads.

    poverty,poverty,poverty...the real enemy the democratic party should be fighting

    by Lisactal on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:48:38 PM PDT

    •  'can't cable companies block certain states' (0+ / 0-)

      It's rather difficult to get this right actually.  On short notice, the answer is pretty much NO.  Given long advance notice, yes they can.

      And of course you can't do a damn thing about over-the-air television.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

      by neroden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ETinKC

      Clinton’s campaign acknowledged that it’s not possible to buy 49-state coverage — that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market.

      * * *

      Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack "misguided."

      "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida," Burton said.

      "For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states."

      http://www.politico.com/...

    •  No his campaign asked that the ads (0+ / 0-)

      be blocked in Fl but was told it was impossible.

  •  i hate Randi Rhodes (0+ / 0-)

    she is just extrmely hateful with no personality, just rants on air. Same with Ed Schultz, they both just shill for anyone not named Clinton. She lied about the 92 and 96 elections as well, saying Clinton won on Perot but ignores all the overwhelming evidence that proved otherwise, shown in articles cited in  http://www.liberalavenger.com/...  and the '96 election where the exit poll had Clinton in a landslide against only Dole, http://www.cnn.com/... and proof that Perot voters favored Clinton shown http://www.cnn.com/... She just cannot stand to see successful people. She has to bash the Clintons because they succeeded in their goals, she is still a second rate talk radio show host in substance and listeners. Franken owned her, he was witty and funny and interesting. I miss him, but can't wait till we see Senator Al Franken! She's gotta stop being so hateful and untruthful

  •  Um, Randi's 90% right, and you're 90% wrong. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bruce HB Lee, notanumber, DaveV, Mia Dolan

    There was a DNC request to take names off the ballot in Michigan, which everyone except Hillary agreed to -- Hillary said it "wouldn't matter" because the Michigan delegates wouldn't be seated.  So, technical error on Randi's part, massive hypocrisy on Hillary's part.

    Hillary did campaign in Florida.  Obama didn't.  Do your research.  http://www.thenation.com/...

    Someone who promotes John McCain's "experience" and announces that he's "certainly" passed the "threshold" to be "commander-in-chief" is not exactly a Democrat in my opinion too.

    -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

    by neroden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:25 PM PDT

  •  Randi came to political talk from entertainment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    invisiblewoman

    radio.  Mostly, she's faking it, and reading press releases, etc., her staff gives her, regardless of the issue.
    If Clear Channel said they pay her $1 million to anchor a right wing conservative woman's show, she'd be a conservative.  Immediately.

    Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

    by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM PDT

    •  I have heard her say on the air (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth

      multiple times that she has been offered big money to do conservative shows but turned down the offers.

    •  Barry, there's tremendous truth to your comment. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Barry in MIA, invisiblewoman

      Read my comments upthread. This election is building upon the 527-created world of our perception. The volume of the message, and the style of the delivery of it, now trump the validity of the content.

      It's not what you say, but how--and through whom and how "loudly"--you say it.

      That is what's left when there's little philosophical difference between the two (quite mainstream) candidates for this party's nomination.

      There is no other choice but to succumb to the stylization of the delivery, inevitably, when both messages--once you look closely at them--are quite similar.

      If it's approached any other way, then there'd have to be agreement between the two players, and we'd be hammering away at Bush and the Republicans now, instead.

      Capturing audience demands a more exciting and visceral level of communication, that becomes the rule of the day for the media delivering the message.

      Around here, the content reflects this mentality that's run rampant throughout the MSM, as well. Despite Kos, et al, putting forth the false notion these days that they're different.

      A reality-based blog? Nope. At the end of the day, you're/we're left with a mainstream liberal blog reflecting the mainstream media's style, too...just like Randi on the radio.

      It's what's in. It is the zeit geist. And, the zeit geist is fucked.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is THE CULTURE...of the media and this blog... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, Barry in MIA

        ...never, ever forget that Kos was a registered Rethug until less than a decade ago. It affects everything here. What's not said? Very simply: Kos was a card-carrying GOP'er when Clinton was first elected. Totally bought into the anti-Clinton establishment, Newt Gingrich and the entire school of thought. But, not today. Kos would have us believe that affects none of his comments or perceptions which affect all here now. We cannot allow history to change the perception. That would undermine everything around here.

        The new school of thinking: Don't look past the veneer...'cause it'll bite you in the ass every time. And, one can't have their own words and posturing undermined with the truth of their existence can they? That would blow everything!

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:24:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Randi has gone batshit crazy! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paddy999

    She's been kissing the ring of "his holiness" for weeks.  Now shes gone totally off the rails--she's committed a form of professional suicide in the process.  About half her audience was Hillary supporters, and I'm betting most of them have tuned out for good.  I sure have.  I used to find her frequent exaggerations and speculations endearing--but  she's become a parody of herself--silly witch.

    What kind of loon does this?  I once had high hopes for Air Anerica, I'm still an avid listener, but maybe Randi knows something.

    then again....

    Maybe she went off her premarin!

    Not smart!

  •  You list things, call them lies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, neroden

    and offer no proof at all that they're lies.

    Sweet.

  •  Randi Rhodes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bruce HB Lee, notanumber, Paddy999

    If you don't like what Randi Rhodes is saying about the Clintons, you'll hate to hear what Ed Schultz is saying about them.

    If I were running in this election, I'd be for change too. - George W. Bush

    by William Domingo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM PDT

  •  Cable Ads (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    William Domingo, neroden

    Clinton’s campaign acknowledged that it’s not possible to buy 49-state coverage — that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market.

    Asking a question on the call, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd pointed out the complexity of the matter by noting that buying advertising in Mobile, Ala., gives a campaign substantial reach into the Florida Panhandle.

    Elleithee responded that Clinton has not yet bought ads in Alabama, which has a Feb. 5 primary, but said the campaign reserves the right to do so.

    Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack "misguided."

    "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida," Burton said.

    "For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states."

    http://www.politico.com/...

  •  Randi Rhodes is not Air America (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bruce HB Lee

    for one. A gross and inflammatory generalization.

    Hillary - the new Divider.

    by tonyfv on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:18:33 PM PDT

  •  I just don't understand Hillary supporters (0+ / 0-)

    How can they be so blind? If any group of supporters can be called "cultists" and "sheep", it would be them. Mind you, I am not calling them that, but I am pretty damn close to it.

    Hillary - the new Divider.

    by tonyfv on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:20:50 PM PDT

  •  I love Randi... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paddy999, invisiblewoman

    she is great...I cannot listen to her right now because all she does is rant on Hillary and it saddens me so much...normal talk radio will return in 90 days....see you then Randi

    Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:24:30 PM PDT

  •  Funny, I started to think along (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland, myboo, aigeanta, invisiblewoman

    the same lines as you today when I had Randi on for less than five minutes.  She wasn't touting the independent line, she was stating as fact that Hillary wants John McCain to win now, so she, Hillary, can challenge him in 2012 and come to the rescue of the country.

    Randi said words to the effect that Hillary's thinking is if John McCain wins, he'll screw up the country even more than it is, and then she can step up in 2012 and tell the people she can fix it and they'll believe her.

    Those weren't her exact words, but pretty close; the idea was exactly as I've written.

    I can believe many things about Hillary, but I can't for one minute believe Randi's "facts" as true.  They don't make any sense for reasons too numerous to mention.

    "It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan," McCain said of Washington.

    by gooderservice on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM PDT

  •  Clinton is Only Trying to Destroy the Party Now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    William Domingo

    "if I can't have it no one can" attitude. Whether she runs as an independent or not the status quo forces (DLC in this case) will do anything to prevent losing power to true reformers. It's impossible for her to win the nomination now and her only purpose is to slime Obama and pull him down as much as possible, by any means necessary.

    If somehow she is forced to disclose her tax returns she will be untenable as a candidate, whether as a VP to Obama or McCain or an independent. The returns will show tens of millions to the Clinton/Burkle partnership from the governments of Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and China. We already know about this foreign influence buying so there must also be even more outrageous garbage in the Clinton returns.  

    •  Clinton doesn't have a lock on trying (0+ / 0-)

      to destroy the party.

      The democratic leadership in the Senate and House are doing a good job to destroy it.

      Harry Reid brings the Intelligence Committee's bill to the floor; not the Judiciary's.

      Nancy Pelosi, any day now, will cave to Bush on FISA... not the only thing she's caved on.

      The leaders and members are doing their part to "destroy the party."  Clinton doesn't get all the credit.

      "It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan," McCain said of Washington.

      by gooderservice on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I trust Randi Rhodes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    William Domingo

    before I trust Hillary Clinton.


    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! - President Merkin Muffley

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:33:06 PM PDT

    •  I used to trust Randi (0+ / 0-)

      I even bought an XM radio and signed up for the service primarily just to hear her, and then started listening to the others.

      She always seemed to lay the facts out on the table, give her opinion, and let others share theirs.  It's not so much that way any more.

      She's not the same as I once knew her to be.  

      I listen to Rachel now daily instead of Randi.  I'd rather hear facts and news stories than Randi's rants.

      "It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan," McCain said of Washington.

      by gooderservice on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keith Olbermann (0+ / 0-)

    If you don't like what Randi Rhodes is saying, what do you think about this?

    If I were running in this election, I'd be for change too. - George W. Bush

    by William Domingo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:50:02 PM PDT

    •  As I said in the closed comments diary, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ryeland, myboo

      if Keith is going to jump into the middle of campaigns, then I expect to hear a Special Comment from him about McCain's acceptance of an anti-Catholic and anti-semitic endorser.

      I also expect to hear Keith's comments on McCain's hiring all lobbyists to run his campaign.  Or McCain's "straight talk" lies.

      If Keith wants to opine on one candidate's behavior, he should do it for all of them who deserve it, too.

      And why didn't Howard Dean speak up?  He's the leader of the democratic party now, right?  He doesn't have to single out one candidate, but he can speak broadly and generally of what is out of bounds and against humanity.  

      And where are the other "party leaders" when it comes to what is right and wrong?  Why aren't they speaking out?  

      "It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan," McCain said of Washington.

      by gooderservice on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the leader of the democratic party (0+ / 0-)

        And why didn't Howard Dean speak up?  He's the leader of the democratic party now, right?

        Wrong. Howard Dean is not "the leader of the democratic party". He's the leader of the democratic national committee, who's job is simply to collect campaign money and set the rules for elections. He runs nothing else.

        If I were running in this election, I'd be for change too. - George W. Bush

        by William Domingo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:33:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I will put on my helmet and await incoming (0+ / 0-)

    but while I disagree with some of your points specific to Obama, Randi has always had trouble with embroidering the facts. She once spent an entire after noon claiming golfer Payne Stewart's plane, which had crashed when the all aboard were poisoned by leaking CO2, had been shot down by the Air Force. This was a while back, but Randi likes to make the show entertaining even to the detriment of facts. She has also lent credence to WTC conspiracy theories.

    Leaving that aside, your points:

    Hillary Clinton broke a "pledge" to remove her name from the Michigan ballot.
    While she may not have "pledged" she stated publicly that she knew the votes wouldn't count.

    Hillary Clinton campaigned in Florida prior to the state's primary.
    While again, perhaps technically untrue, she did fund raise, and staged a Potemkin victory rally in Florida the night of the FL primary.

    Hillary Clinton is responsible for the "Obama is a Muslim" email that has been circulating.
    Again, typically RR, in that she pushes a fact. The fact is though, that members of her campaign did pass along these emails, but HRC dismissed those people from the campaign.

    Hillary Clinton is "not exactly a Democrat". Well, after the past couple of weeks, this is pretty forgivable statement of opinion.

    Hillary Clinton intends to run as an independent candidate in the general election.
    Did RR cite any sources? This is one where I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  •  Why is Maggie Williams posting here? (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary is a Skrull

    by LoLoLaLa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:59:31 PM PDT

  •  Randi Rhodes is broken. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth

    She is the kitchen blender that hums louder than ever but neither stirs nor frappes. She just sends foamy stuff all over the walls and floor.

    Randi thought that "two great candidates" .. actually there were four or five... would be a bonus for the Democratic Party.

    She thought that if both Hillary and Barack flattered each others credentials and deservedness that in the end America would have one damned historically significant and well positioned presidents for making real change.

    Poor Randi thought a policy of mutual admiration would leave the electors with the choice to make from between two apparently highly qualified AND MOTIVATED candidates.

    Instead Hillary thought it would be better to elect the survivor of a mud-wrestling bout.  This, on the theory that the general election would also be a mud-wrestling bout.  This on theory that Americans may hate mud-wrestling, but they have no say.

    Poor Randi Rhodes. She thought a new politics was emerging. She thought the Democrats were not only a shoo-in to win... but to make real change.

    Poor Randi Rhodes. She lost it. She lost the plot. She lost her slim hold on the calmness.

    Now ... who broke Randi's spirit?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site