On the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary that will make or break her campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton is embarking on a cable campaign swing.
The New York senator will appear tonight on two national television programs.
She will do three segments on CNN's Larry King Show.
The CNN promo reads: "Larry King Monday Night! Hillary Clinton! Hours before what may be the final showdown with Barack Obama -- Hillary Clinton talks to Larry King! Could their conversation change your vote? Find out only on Larry King Live!"
Clinton will also appear on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."
Here's the MSNBC promo: "On the eve of the primary election we've all been waiting for, tonight at 8pm ET Keith will host an interview with Senator Clinton on her lead the Democratic Pennsylvania Primary (First Read is calling it Hillary's Race to Lose)...and what happens after all the votes are counted in the Keystone state. Obama over the weekend said "This is not going to be a blow-out race. We're looking for a win, and we think it's going to be close." It's going to be an amazing next 48 hours...we hope you tune in."
Guess which interview will have more teeth to it?
Here's a hint: More than a month ago, Olbermann directed a special comment toward Clinton, saying, "You are campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican."
55 comments(Latest Comment: 04/22/2008 03:36:17 by shelaghc)
Good Morning. Do you have your flag pin on? Is your phone set to speed dial Hillary at 3 am? Are you ready for today?
It's the last day of campaigning for the Pennsylvania Primary. I am so glad that it is nearly over. The fight for the Keystone state is nearly over. This morning we wake up to find that Obama is flush with cash on hand, while Clinton is, well, she is in debt. From the AP: Continue reading...
I love the internets. Not just for the reason that you might think, that Velveeta is still so sick that she can't come up with anything to write about. Though you would be correct on that point, I also love the fact that there is so much news that'd normally be missed without the internet.
Last month, it was revealed that the New York Times and Manhattan publishing world were deceived by Love and Consequences, a faked memoir by a white girl who claimed to live the life you only hear about in Dr. Dre songs. The damage control was so good, the book never saw daylight, and we never knew how big of an embarrassment this cartoonishly racist gangster fantasy should have been. But last week a copy arrived at my doorstep.
Supposedly written by gangsta moll Margaret B. Jones, Love and Consequences turned out to be the work of middle-class liar Margaret Seltzer. She had invented the tale behind a laptop at Starbucks, tricking not only her publisher, but also her fans at the Times, which graced the memoir with repeated coverage.
After it was revealed her work was a forgery, the damage control was swift and successful. On March 5, with the book just out the door, the New York Times revealed the hoax, if not just how bad it was. Her agent, Faye Bender, told the paper, reassuringly, that "there was no reason to doubt her, ever." And that set the tone for the coverage. Love & Consequences, wrote the L.A. Times, must have seemed "edgy, sexy, cinematic."
Except it's not. As a true story, this book would have been less about "love" and more about crude racial stereotypes. As a hoax, it reads as easily the laziest forgery ever to receive a six-figure advance and a rave review in the Times.
By now you know...if it's a Saturday blog before 7am, your loyal TriSec is off to donate platelets. But I'll come back to that in a moment.
233 years ago at this very hour, not quite 5 miles from where I sit, a small band of rebels led by Captain Parker faced down the world's largest and most powerful superpower.
Of course, we all know this action as "The Shot Heard 'Round the World", and the story is always worth retelling. I'll let the eyewitness Sylvanus Wood tell us about it today.
"I, Sylvanus Wood, of Woburn, in the county of Middlesex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, aged seventy-four years, do testify and say that on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775, I was an inhabitant of Woburn, living with Deacon Obadiah Kendall; that about an hour before the break of day on said morning, I heard the Lexington bell ring, and fearing there was difficulty there, I immediately arose, took my gun and, with Robert Douglass, went in haste to Lexington, which was about three miles distant.
When I arrived there, I inquired of Captain Parker, the commander of the Lexington company, what was the news. Parker told me he did not know what to believe, for a man had come up about half an hour before and informed him that the British troops were not on the road. But while we were talking, a messenger came up and told the captain that the British troops were within half a mile. Parker immediately turned to his drummer, William Diman, and ordered him to beat to arms, which was done. Captain Parker then asked me if I would parade with his company. I told him I would. Parker then asked me if the young man with me would parade. I spoke to Douglass, and he said he would follow the captain and me.
By this time many of the company had gathered around the captain at the hearing of the drum, where we stood, which was about half way between the meetinghouse and Buckman's tavern. Parker says to his men, 'Every man of you, who is equipped, follow me; and those of you who are not equipped, go into the meeting-house and furnish yourselves from the magazine, and immediately join the company.' Parker led those of us who were equipped to the north end of Lexington Common, near the Bedford Road, and formed us in single file. I was stationed about in the centre of the company. While we were standing, I left my place and went from one end of the company to the other and counted every man who was paraded, and the whole number was thirty-eight, and no more.
Confrontation at Lexington Green Just as I had finished and got back to my place, I perceived the British troops had arrived on the spot between the meeting-house and Bucknian's, near where Captain Parker stood when he first led off his men. The British troops immediately wheeled so as to cut off those who had gone into the meeting-house. The British troops approached us rapidly in platoons, with a general officer on horseback at their head. The officer came up to within about two rods of the centre of the company, where I stood, the first platoon being about three rods distant. They there halted. The officer then swung his sword, and said, 'Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!' Some guns were fired by the British at us from the first platoon, but no person was killed or hurt, being probably charged only with powder.
Just at this time, Captain Parker ordered every man to take care of himself. The company immediately dispersed; and while the company was dispersing and leaping over the wall, the second platoon of the British fired and killed some of our men. There was not a gun fired by anv of Captain Parker's company, within my knowledge. I was so situated that I must have known it, had any thing of the kind taken place before a total dispersion of our company. I have been intimately acquainted with the inhabitants of Lexington, and particularly with those of Captain Parker's company, and, with one exception, I have never heard any of them say or pretend that there was any firing at the British from Parker's company, or any individual in it until within a year or two. One member of the company told me, many years since, that, after Parker's company had dispersed, and he was at some distance, he gave them 'the guts of his gun.'"
Over the last 5 years we've been inundated with "Support the Troops" propaganda, yellow ribbon magnets, Freedoms Fries, and all other sorts of nonsense designed to test the patriotism of the average American. It almost seemed like if you couldn't reflexively say "I Support the Troops", you were branded a traitor. But how many people could look beyond the jingoism of that phrase to explain what it meant?
A news item yesterday got me thinking about our priorities within the military and the Pentagon, and who REALLY "Supports the Troops". The news reported the story of how a soldier was being denied benefits and asked to return a signing bonus because THEY had discharged him due to his two brothers being killed in action. It seemed so petty when you think of the billions of dollars being flushed down the commode that is the war in Iraq. I decided to dig around a little and see how the U.S. government supports the troops, and how they support the Military-Industrial complex.
147 comments(Latest Comment: 04/19/2008 03:13:13 by Mondobubba)
Sorry if this is a misuse of the blog entries. I thought it would be helpful for the Sam effort if all of the places to weigh in were in one locale.
First: Of course, email firstname.lastname@example.org (and/or email@example.com - there's some debate as to which spelling is correct) and politely let him know we support and will listen to a five-day-a-week gig for Sam.
Third: Post a comment on the blog at AAR. It's the one with the announcement about the "celebrity guest hosts" for the next month. They've already got a talented radio show host ready, willing and able to step into that time slot. Use him!
I don't know what aar plans for the week after Belzer, I hope it turns out to be me. I don't like the idea of competing with Randi, but we wouldn't really be competing... Randi's affiliates know her, most will pick her up. Those that don't want to keep running her won't... I'd like those few to be ones that end up running my daily show.
Sam's contract will run out in just a few weeks (mentioned in the summary of this blog post from earlier today) - which may be why AAR hasn't committed to a show for him yet.
AAR management continually makes boneheaded decisions about their on-air personalities. Let's make sure they know just how boneheaded a move like dropping Sam, after the disastrous decision about Randi, would be.
4 comments(Latest Comment: 04/18/2008 02:45:26 by Raine)
I must say I am rather disgusted. As was mentioned last night, on our live blog, they were discussing the spin instead of the issues. I feel like ABC let everyone down, Both Clinton and Obama supporters alike.
This was not a debate, it was a hit job, by a corporate controlled news outlet. We have precious little time before the Pennsylvania Primary, and instead of the moderators asking questions about issues, we got a 20 minute discussion on a flag pin. (52 minutes altogether on the alleged Obama controversies) These are non issues, and it is an insult to the American intelligence for these 2 men to be asking such questions. Continue reading...
192 comments(Latest Comment: 04/18/2008 03:08:37 by Mondobubba)
On April 6th, Barack Obama said these words during a fundraiser in San Francisco:
...But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...
It should seem obvious to anyone reading this in context that when he referred to guns or religion, he was referring to the voters' fear that government would interfere with them as a fake source-point for frustration. To me, it does not read as if Obama is saying people find refuge in guns or religion. Yet that seems to be how everyone that is criticizing him is interpreting it.
168 comments(Latest Comment: 04/17/2008 00:36:04 by IzzyBitz)