digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Dan Abrams misrepresenting Obama Supporters on air

dailykos.com — I sent a letter to Mr. Abrams in response to his question about why Obama supporters don't want Hillary on the ticket, and his statement that she deserves to be on ticket. What he read on air was not what I wrote. Follow the link to read the account.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 05/17/2008, -9/+37The politics of destruction is indeed unacceptable to us. Good article.
  • NoDrama, on 05/17/2008, -8/+23Well, if there was ever a year for taking things out of context, this would be it. Way to set the record straight!
  • satyr9us, on 05/17/2008, -14/+15Dan Abrams = tv news wanker. Sorry he did you wrong, but a snake is a snake. Still, he's a good deal less mendacious than, say, Billo.
  • MommaKatz, on 05/17/2008, -4/+13Excellent email, on point, and to the Obama supporter who grumbled about you speaking for all of us, I didn't read it that way. You shared a viewpoint, one I happen to agree with, but also stated that other supporters feel differently. I also agree that the word snipping makes it look like you grumbled about Clinton w/o acknowledging her, which wasn't your approach at all. Nice job on setting the record straight!!
  • heypetray, on 05/17/2008, -4/+8Thank you for following up. I'm curious if anybody in the MSM ever second guess their malicious behavior.
  • shadus, on 05/17/2008, -1/+13If people would just quit listening to these talk idiots all the time on both the liberal and "conservative" sides they would just go away. I miss the days when the news was less biased and reporters reported rather than spewing their opinions.
  • elshizzo, on 05/17/2008, -8/+47I'm probably gonna get buried for saying this, but I don't see what the big deal is. What he showed of the comment on television seems, in essence, basically what you wrote. The words were slightly edited, but its not as if he really changed the meaning of what you said.

    These tv shows get emails that are pages long, what do you expect them to do, read your entire email on television?? You have to expect that they will edit and shorten emails.

    [btw, i'm a strong Obama supporter]
    • arjie, on 05/17/2008, -3/+6I'm not even American and there are things about Obama I don't like, but "Don't you get it Dan?" could've been left out, leaving room for "She fought hard. She lost." Boom! Now it looks like the letter writer is magically a few years older. That's the problem with editing, you don't do it right, you can change some implied things through omission (and some explicit things)
    • KiraDnote, on 05/17/2008, -6/+10This KandyCat guy is just a drama queen cry-baby. But it looks like he has plenty of company here.
    • elshizzo, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3I think I figured out the secret to digg. Just say you are going to get buried or request people to bury you, and you will get dugg up
      • Pillage, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2also that you are an Obama supporter.
    • rblancarte, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2"the comment on television seems, in essence, basically what you wrote"
      Not really.

      The first paragraph was the main point of the e-mail. She was answering why Obama supporters don't want Hillary as VP and the main thing was that she is old guard Washington, and Obama is not that. This whole point was left out, and it was the main theme of the letter.

      The second part addressed his "Doesn't she deserve the VP spot?" - which of course is a NO. No one deserves anything. She ran a tough race and lost. The "tough" part was left out, giving the tone that she was implying 'well she lost, too bad for her.' And then a key point is that she wrapped with, this is Obama's call on his own VP - was completely left out.

      So no, Not what she said. He did take her out of context in this case. The whole meat of the letter was left out, and he just put out there bits and pieces that really make it seem like the message was 'tough luck for Hillary, but she lost, go home.' It is like seeing a great movie, and then telling your friend it sucked because there was a meaningless scene in it that you didn't like.
      • Krate, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Spot on - he had the power to make his point by twisting an opposing opinion, and he used it
  • dreamfamous, on 05/17/2008, -13/+1http://rickywrae.myknet.org/music/Sevendust%20-%20 ...
  • p0s3r, on 05/17/2008, -33/+15They dropped two sentences. No meaning was changed. But, of course, being the drama queen fairy that you libtards are this over the top article was in line with expectations. YOU SIR, ARE A VICTIM OF THE "MSM"! RISE UP LIBTARDS AND DEFEND THIS ***** HONOR!
  • fadeout, on 05/17/2008, -6/+5He is the networks token Clinton goon. Pretty creative editing he did there.

    ps: he is also the sad, sad excuse for a host who let Pat Buchanan bully a black female guest until Rachel Madow (sp?) stepped in. The video was pretty popular on the intarwebs for a while.
    • sugarazor, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4He is not pro-Clinton. He's anti-DC media, which has had it out for Clinton from day one. You're not pro-Clinton just because you don't think Hillary is the Antichrist.
  • tjmb9, on 05/17/2008, -1/+15Not trying to defend Dan Abrams but I doubt he's the one who reads those emails and edits them for air. He probably only comes up with a reaction to whatever post-edited emails they show him.
  • taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -9/+3Obama is going to need Hillary as VP to bring in the hick and fundie white-trash vote. It's a smart move.

    "You asked "Doesn't she deserve the VP spot?" Don't you get it Dan? No, she doesn't deserve it. The Vice Presidency of the United States is not a consolation prize. She fought hard. She lost. There is no second place. Besides, doesn't Barack Obama deserve to pick his own Vice President?"
    This is a fallacious argument. There can be a second place, should Obama and the party want to. Your feelings are clouding your judgement.
    • majortom1981, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Yeah and if you go with that argument then what about all the voters that will go to the republican side that were all hillary voters? The party is so divided right now that if she does not get vp there are enough democratic hillary voters that if she doesnt win might vote republican ., All the obama supporters bashing hillary doesnt help. He might have no choice but to have her be vp if he wants to win.
      • beakerwimp, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3majortom1981: You know what would be even more effective than offering the VP slot to Hillary? Offering the VP slot to the latest winner of American Idol. I would love to see a combined Obama/Idol ticket since their ticket would be more likely to win in November. How about offering the VP slot to one of the Republican primary candidates? There are a ton of "interesting" possibilities for VP once you start using this kind of logic. What would the cost of "winning" be in these cases?
    • beakerwimp, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3taradisiac: You could be right from a utilitarian point of view. Perhaps the Democratic ticket has a higher chance of winning in November if Obama goes back on his own principles and offers Hillary a spot on the ticket despite her behavior and character flaws (some of which stand in stark contrast to behavior and principles that Obama is trying to promote). Just remember that utilitarianism should never be the sole judge of what is right and what is wrong. A more robust kind of ethics should often come into play. It may be practical to want the Democratic ticket to win in November, but if you have to sell out your own principles, is it worth it? What is the dividing line between selling out your own principles and just selling out enough that you still have integrity left while accomplishing your goal?
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2What are Obama's principles? Just wondering.
        • beakerwimp, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1WilliamDavis: Reading the platform materials on Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/), or summaries of his early community organizing work (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg), or summaries of his political career and voting record thus far (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i ... or his books (pro tip: listening to the audio books alongside Clinton's Living History and McCain's Faith of My Fathers and Why Courage Matters goes pretty quick in the car or on the train), or his own words in his numerous video taped speeches (http://www.barackobama.com/tv/) would probably give you a better idea of what the man's all about than I could.

          But I sense from your comment that you want me to give a summary of my own impressions rather than getting information from primary sources. Towards that end I can only give you my personal opinions. It should be noted that I don't trust many politicians, Obama included. Is he genuine? None of us can know for sure. All we have to go on is the evidence at hand. Despite this mistrust, he seems comparatively more genuine than most politicians (although it could all just be an elaborate lifelong ruse). From what I can see almost every word, almost every action, and almost every vote that Obama has given over the course of his professional and political career has been tightly focused on bottom-up organizing. This, in my estimation, is what his core principle is. Does he make mistakes? Does he deviate from his own stated goals at times? Sure. I like the way he normally owns up to these mistakes with frank admissions of guilt and clear descriptions of what was learned (see his state gas tax reduction vote becoming a guiding experience in opposing a federal gas tax reduction). This is something I believe in greatly and you can see clear evidence that Obama not only believes in it as well, but also practices what he preaches. It is evidenced in his community work (which really makes it sound like the man got his hands dirty for not much promise of great financial benefit early on in his life). It is also evidenced in the way his campaign has been run (which has been pretty smart and highly effective without wallowing into the mud we're used to from other candidates). I like the fact that his primary source of funding in the campaign has been the "small" donor as opposed to large institutional donations from traditional sources (examples: McCain and Clinton). Many of the risks taken by Obama during his life (choosing to do low-paying community organizing work, choosing to run a second time for office after his painful loss in a first run at it, choosing to actually make public statements and write letters to political figures opposing the Iraq war at a time when public/political support for it was high, choosing to use bottom-up organizing and fund raising in his presidential campaign, choosing to not drag out Clinton's muddy past as a weapon in the primary thus far) are things that I admire.

          I have so far avoided the cheesier aspects of his appeal, such as his polished oratory skills... but he obviously benefits for style points there too. Which of the books listed above is the best written and most inspirational? I thought Audacity of Hope was the best, and it wasn't ghost-written or co-authored. Which candidate suffers from the least amount of historical ill will? Well, with Clinton's wide disregard among right-wingers and McCain's wide disregard among left-wingers and ultra-conservatives Obama certainly has the least baggage in that respect. Which candidate talks in the most frank terms about his/her own personal failings and mistakes? After researching each candidate, reading all of their books, watching there speeches, etc... the answer was clear for my personal taste. These are more superficial reasons for liking the man than the substantial policy and philosophy-based reasons listed further up, but they do count for something in my mind.

          That is my two cents since you asked.
  • viagraspace, on 05/17/2008, -21/+0http://viagraspace.com Buy viagra online - easy and cheap way to pleasure! All pills without prescription. Fast free shipping available. We guarantee best quality and low price!
    • dh122, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2So, cheap viagra has finally made its way to digg.
  • Amazetbm, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4If Obama chose Hillary as a running mate, they wouldlose.
    • majortom1981, on 05/17/2008, -4/+0No he wouldnt. He would get all Hillarys voters. Remember the party is pretty much devided up the middle. if hillary is not his vp they might all vote republican then obama is in trouble. With hillary as his vp he would get all her supporters votes and would have a vice president that has some kind of experience. especially in the foreign relations department.
      • Amazetbm, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1You mean the Hillary voters like the ones in WV? Quite a few of the working class people who voted for Hillary gave ethnic reasons. They could view Hillary being Obama's running mate as a slap in the face and vote Republican in the general election.
  • jontalisman, on 05/17/2008, -2/+8What a load of whining crybaby bollocks! Absolutely buried.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/17/2008, -2/+9What a whiner. Letters (whether to a show or to the editorial page of a newspaper) can always be edited for length. The editing here was fair. Did it cut out some of the nuiance of the response? Sure. That's what happens in a sound bite culture...
  • ivan14, on 05/17/2008, -11/+4why would Hillary be the vice president to someone like Obama? That would just look ultimately weird because she is much more competent and experienced as a leader than he will ever be. If Obama clinches the nomination, i would be one of those millions of Hillary supporters who wouldnt care less about the upcoming elections.

    and i even secretly wish that Obama loses so i can tell this to the obama freaks...

    "I TOLD YOU SO!"

    HILLARY 2012!
    • XenoSNK, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1You're what's wrong with the nation. If you lose interest after one candidate drops, you don't just forget about the election altogether. As an Obama supporter, I'd much rather you vote for McCain than not vote at all.

      You think that not voting gives you the right to say "well, I didn't vote for them, that's for sure" if they do anything wrong. In the actual election, you pick a side based on which you think is better, regardless of how ***** you might think they might be.

      So shut the hell up and drop this Hillary nonsense.
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"In the actual election, you pick a side based on which you think is better, regardless of how ***** you might think they might be."

        That's why you'll always be stuck with *****. Why should I get out of bed for that when you're going to do it for me?
      • ivan14, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Elections are about voting for candidates you LIKE! I don't like Obama and McCain, so why on earth would i vote?!

        Vote for the better one?! Well no one is better because no one is GOOD in the first place. and i am definitely not voting for the less worst!
  • unpolloloco, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4The only way I'm voting for McCain is if Hillary is on the democratic ticket. (otherwise, Colbert seems like a good option)
  • badnewshotel, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4Wait... the news media changed something to create drama? Well, I never!

    How does this make it to the front page? Come on people, we can do better.
  • methos75, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2I still do not understand why we do not do the logical thing, and have an opposite party member as VP. Say if Obama won Mccain was VP or Obama if Mccain won, that is the most logical and intelligent way to do this from an check and balances viewpoint.
    • 919kwjc, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Please, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. The American political system does not support such a plan, nor would it be a good way to govern. The VP is solely intended to take over for the President in the event of his inability to perform the duties of the office. While the last 16 years have seen a more active VP, there is no grounds for a 'competitive' presence in the office. Winners win, losers lose... that's how it is and should be.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1the dailykos herd who got this stupid article dugg up will bury you for that comment and myself, because that site is fascist. you bring up a very valid point, though, and I agree with you.
  • rsh28630, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1It may have been malicious... or just an inept editing. There was nuance in the original letter that was lost to brevity but the basic Q & A was present.

    I dislike Hillary's tactics in the primary and I certainly don't feel she's entitled to be the VP nominee but LBJ was placed on the Democratic ticket with JFK to deliver voters. He did and there could hardly have been more difference between Kennedy's soaring vision and Johnson's lifting the dog by its ears vote grabbing. There was time for a change then too. Democrats wanted to beat Nixon more than assure ideological purity prevailed and Lyndon was the answer. The cliché that 'politics makes strange bedfellows' has legs. If you really wonder whether Hillary could possibly bring benefit to the ticket, listen to her voters speaking after West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    I have no illusions about the downside of the Clintons. I also am not so naive to believe Obama won't need all the help he can get by November. The Neocons and those that have profited mightily in the last eight years are not going to go quietly. If I felt Hillary and Bill would do everything in their power to deliver a Democratic victory regardless of whether she's the Veep pick, I'd favor Biden or Richardson or Kathleen Sebelius or whoever Barback Obama chooses. Alas, we may not have that luxury and we damn sure will have more Karl Rove, the SwiftBoat crowd and election machine fraud.
  • stonewaljacksn, on 05/17/2008, -9/+2you posted on the dailykos and therefore deserve none of my respect for contributing to the downfall of democracy
  • latinjones, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5Your letter was a bit too long to be read completely and it didn't exactly knock my socks off. I see where you are coming from, but again, my socks are still on. If they really felt threatened by your letter they would have just pitched it and not bothered paraphrasing.

    I think his response was appropriate to your letter.
    • WilliamDavis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1NO! The media is against Obama, and has been from the start. Everyone can see this.
  • waggdogg, on 05/17/2008, -6/+2Is it true that 29 percent of Hillary Clinton supporters want her to run as a third candidate? If this is true than Obama will have to address this issue. If he doesn't pick Hillary as his VP, he is in jeopardy of losing their votes and the election.
  • notSLICK, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5hillary clinton, by what i have observed, is a bald faced and unapologetic liar. her relationship with truth is as stalwart as GWB's. she thinks people are stupid and so she speaks to the stupid people. you'll notice that the same people who voted for her in west virginia were the same poorly educated sheep that voted for bush twice. hillary likes them because they beleive anything you tell them as long as there are news cameras around.
  • dioland, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4if there's such a thing as an arrogant turd, dan abrams is it. 'whoa! what a revelation!'
  • anubis2night, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3You should never feed the pig that is the modern news media. With todays standards you can almost be certain that they will spin the material and skew it to their agenda. However at least in this case we see that she has some sort of evidence and the digg community to at least call the reporter and the news agency on their corrupt ways. Let's digg this one and send some letters to the news site and show them we don't appreciate their deceptive ways. If we want a change in the political establishment we should also ask for a change in the current culture of media news as well. Since the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • tdempsey, on 05/17/2008, -6/+3You're right - Hillary doesn't deserve VP. She should be President!
  • ArmchairEcon, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2I don't think that omitting one phrase from his quote changed the idea all that much, i would expect my comments to be shortened due to time constraints while on air. As much as I like to make fun of the MSM, i feel this is a weak argument.

    That being said, I agree with your point that Hillary doesn't 'deserve' position of the veep.
  • riseabove, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Maybe he can get a job with CNN
  • firefx9, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Since you can't pay attention I'll explain why what Abrams did was foul. One of the cute games most of these guys like to play, is to make it seem like the Dems are being foul. Cutting her comment up makes it play like she is a bitter person that hates Hill. With the comment in it's full (and they could have posted the whole thing ad have posted larger ones) context, it just says that Hill lost and Obama should pick whom he feels is fit or riht for the job. The anger is out of it. They knew this. It's no different than what they do on Fox. They keep saying people (Far Left Loonies) hate Bush, instead of people don't trust him and portray him for the blithering slim he is. Or maybe if you look at what has happened in our country for the past 7 years...all of this crap hapened during the Republican / Business / Corporation takeover. They have broken us! No one has to hate Bush to acknowledge how we have been wronged. Your attitude is the same exact one that has us in this dilema. "It's no big deal" well it tuen our it IS a big deal. It's the little things that get a pass that stab you and cause the major bleeding!!!
  • kl78229, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7Whining.
    Pure and simple.
    Television edits everything. How the author didn't expect that is incomprehensible.
    That's what you get for tuning into mainstream media in the first place.
    Like our government, none of them are to be trusted.
  • spaghetti2000, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2This is a better representation of Obama supporters

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8AnEHKZM1I
  • JoeOfParma, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I don't know why Dan Abrams is still on the air. A rerun of Countdown would get better ratings.
  • desertDenizen, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2For every useful bit of commentary Abrams makes (which, admittedly, he does now and then, IMO), he fans the flames of nothingness 10-20 times. Was there ever a person less deserving of his own news show based on pure lack of... anything? I mean, a news show about legal matters?? (Assuming the format hasn't changed since I tuned him out long ago.)
  • Neo2627, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Hillary doesn't even deserve to be in the same 'room' with Sen. Obama; after all the 'back-stabbing she and her 'slick willie' husband,did against him! I would not 'dirty' the ticket with her sallow lies! If Sen. Obama is to win, in Nov. Leave her to her own destructive ways!
  • landosystem, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2I was listening to an interview with Dan Rather last night where he brought up the point that one of the most interesting things in this campaigns is where the candidates have gotten their money, and that there has been very little coverage of it. He said directly after the issue of gender/color, that this was the most historic factor in this election and yet it has been widely ignored that Obama has earned so much from alternative sources like the internet.
    Most media outlets simply state that he has earned more, not that he has earned more without having to pander to the special interests.

    Food for thought, who do you want paying for your leader?
  • Pillage, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Those Kos Kids should send this to Kieth (if he hasn't seen it already while he's browsing it), though that may require him to actually criticize his own network, and well we can have none of that: "You really do find itself incumbent on you to take your own network to the same degree of task...(or) it doesn't say much for (your) manhood." ~Kieth Olbermann
  • kroses, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Danny Boy is probably fast friends with Hillary and her gang. After all, they all live in New York, and Dan's father is a big-time Democratic attorney. They all travel in the same circles. The same with Hillary "shill," Andrea Mitchell and her husband, former Fed. Chairman, Alan Greenspan. Andrea shills on her MSNBC program every day. It's disgusting, as is Dan!!! Let their ratings drop, along with Hillary's. I'll stick with Keith!!! He is the ONLY one worth watching on that God-forsaken network!!! (And the big-wigs know it!!!) Hopefully, he will move to a more democracy-friendly network when his contract runs out. We will follow him (and desert them in droves!!!!! They might as well shut down!!!!!!!
  • Dante22, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1You have no idea how you come across to others who are not 'bitter' do you?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.