I always assumed Link-TV had a balanced, internationalist organization behind it. This puts a whole new light on the organization. I will be keeping that in mind when I check out their programming from this point forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

keep up the good work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the letter reportedly sent to Nancy Pelosi by Hillary Clinton supporters regarding her comment on "super delegates". What they are obviously advocating is for her to remain silent and allow the Clinton campaign to "work" these delegates and hopefully revive her candidacy, regardless of what primary voters may or may not have indicated is their preference. Is there any doubt in your mind that they would be presenting the exact opposite argument if Hillary were in the lead?

I realy hope the voters of Pennsylvania see the Clinton campaign for what it truly is and hand her a definitive defeat.
============================================

March 26, 2008

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay and Tracy Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On health care he is abysmal and on environmental issues almost as bad. He's voted to fund the war along with Hillary every chance he's had, and says he might change plans for troop withdrawel if the situation on the ground changes (sigh). Both talk a good talk (Obama talks a GREAT talk) but then walk the walk of having sold "we the people" out to corporate interests. The possibility of McCain makes me shudder even more. What's a REAL progressive who wants REAL change to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is there so much desperation in trying to LINK LINK T.V. to
campaign shenanigans because they're airing an interview with Barak's grandmother? You fear that the public is being remindfed he's black. OMG. A) Barak is a man of color who against all odds has risen to the top to give hope and faith to others who are also citizens of the world but just not Barbie and Ken dollies, B) Barak isn't black. He's just your average Joe. I think the first scenario is preferable and it's so bizarre that you're trying to trash LINK T.V. an organization that actually airs programs no one else would so dare. I don't know. This article seems surprisingly desperate. It's all a plot. No, some of it is. Some of it is just LIFE and not in the control of the writer's personal agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like your malware description, it beats the heck out of calling Hillzilla a monster.lol

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If bthespoon wants to make assertions about differences between Obama and Clinton he/she should be specific.

eg. Heath care
Clinton proposes ..............
Obama proposes................
Clinton's plan is better because.........
Same for environmental policy, which is the other topic mentioned.

Otherwise, the assertions of important policy differences between them is just hot air.

Re the donor letter -

Talk about "talking great talk"!
There's really no way to read the letter as anything other than a politely stated threat.
"We're the big donors, so listen up. 'Clarify' your position and 'be responsive.'"

Nothing could be better for our democracy or for the Democratic Party than for these big donors to have much less influence than they've had. Who are they to try to run the show? If they don't like what's going on let them take their money elsewhere. Obama has raised a lot more money than Clinton and from a much much larger donor base. The reported AVERAGE donation is $109. That suggests that the big donors to his campaign are not in the same position to try to run the show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary has been to secretive Bilderberger meetings, as has Bill. She gets more money from the military-Industrial complex than even 100 year war McCain. Obama and his wife both are CFR, as is Cheney. Obama also has Trilateral/Illummaniti, Zbigniew Brezinski as one of his advisors. Pick your poison. These are the choices the power-elite and MSM have left us with. If we even hold an election in 08, before the "decider" declares martial law; the police state will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The simple answer to this story is that the Huffington Post has a spread on Obama and they have requested to use a story we ran on Feb. 6. Also, where do you get your facts from about David Michaelis being a big donor to Hillary Clinton? I recommend that you check your facts!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You got it so wrong. First, Link TV is a great channel - browse their programming guide. Friends and supporters (who let their faces be on the Link TV site, asking for support for the channel) include Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and Dave Mathews - wow, what a bunch of Republicans! Second, I know David Michaelis of link TV. He lives in San Francisco, and the link you provided to David Michaelis, the "hefty contributor" to Clinton, shows TWO DIFFERENT David Michaelis's, one in DC and one in New York! Wow get yer facts straight

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LINK TV is the largest national progressive TV media channel in the country. It is the video home of the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Democracy Now, documentaries revealing the corruption in the Bush administration, etc. It's listed board (which is NOT Republican) is supplemented with a working board of over a dozen prominent progressives.

Worse, Gotta Laff lists David Michaelis as a hefty Clinton supporter - but did not do the research necessary to discover that there are two David Michaelis's listed as Clinton donors, neither of whom live in San Francisco (where Link and the real David Michaelis live) and both of whom live in two other different cities and neither of whom work for Link TV.

As a long time journalist, friend of Link TV and its founder Kim Spencer and a member of its advisory board, I am shocked, dismayed and frankly a little angry that Gotta Laff would publish such wildly wrong information without even calling Kim or Link TV for comment. This is journalism 101 - getting your facts right before you shoot your mouth off. By doing so, he has damaged the best national progressive media voice in America.

After reading Gotta Laff's post on Link TV, I will rely on Rush for my facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]