Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Texas: and the winner is Obama? Clinton?
Share:
by jaurez | March 28, 2008 at 02:24 pm
460 views | 20 Recommendations | 2 comments
Photos
Tomorrow is a big day for Texas and for the Presidential campaign.
Tallies will be sent to both Obama and Clinton campaigns to determine the all-out Texas winner. Well, almost. The results will actually be finalised in June at the party's state convention.
Campaign officials for Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expect to learn Saturday who actually won Texas.
However news headlines promise to be interesting if tallies add up to an Obama victory in Texas. CNN and Rolling Stone Magazine stand practically alone in stating this view so far, although simple math taking account of the projected caucus tallies so far can help figure it out. According to their last calculations it is 99 to 94, or including the superdelegates, 109 to 106 for Obama. Will the press undermine the win by analysing the overall win with a fragmented view of the two-step process? Or will the press fawn surprise and discuss how the "phase-2 caucus effect" was oh-so deceivingly a major factor in determining the Texas nominating contest, with lengthy and convoluted explanations of the process, in order to show how complicated it all is to figure such things out.
Will Clinton stand by her statement despite all evidence to the contrary? This tactic has failed her in the dodging-bullets-in-Bosnia incident and the press has gained courage in crying out the-Emporer-Has-No-Clothes, though it took Sinbad, a comedian, to call it out first, doing the work that journalists are paid to do. What held back the countless journalists who were on the same trip from reporting the discrepancy first with their own selves as witnesses? Was it the editorial boards at news organisations? Or perhaps it is true that "just words" doesn't quite cut it nowadays - truth needs video.
Why has the press stuck by the "Clinton Wins Texas" version for weeks despite growing evidence to the contrary? Where is Sinbad ?
Now a Florida blog is asking how Sinbad got the scoop that the mainstream media missed:
Both CBS's Sharyl Attkison and NBC's Andrea Mitchell have pointed out during their reports that they were actually with Clinton on that Bosnia trip and recalled no sniper fire, rushing crowdsor exagerrated danger. Since headlines have been filled with the news, other journalists who took that trip 12 years ago -- including former MTV News reporter Tabitha Soren -- have weighed in.
So why did it take comic Sinbad to blow the lid on the whole deal?
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 16:07 on March 28th, 2008
jaurez, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 19:25 on March 28th, 2008
jaurez, very good story, analysis, and commentary, I remain convinced that Obama won Texas, The Texas two step, gotta Love it!
Hillary said she was the first, "First Lady" to be in a War Zone since Eleanor Roosevelt. Actually it was Pat Nixon who traveled to a Mobile Hospital in Vietnam in 1969. Her account of the avoiding sniper fire and landing sound just like what Senator Clinton said. The account is in the book Pat Nixion, The Untold Story.
here is an except
"marked the first time that a First Lady had been in a combat zone, although another First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, had also visited troops on her numerous travels"
" Were whisked from the airport in a helicopter that seemed to go straight up out of range of possible sniper fire and then plummeted between the trees"
Sound Familar?