Cenk's Analysis of "Pledged Delgate" flap was poorly researched

Email Print posted by TooFolkGR 02/20/2008 10:39:24 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Cenk made a couple extraordinary claims during the 2/19show relating to the flap over the Clinton camp trying to "poach" pledged Obama delegates.

The first thing he said was that if Clinton thought she was going to lose, she would go to the convention and try to poach delegates.

The second thing is that they would accomplish this by promising political appointments and projects.

Neither of these claims are supported by the evidence.

Here's the actual quote that all this nonsense is based on:

"I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody's delegates."  [emphasis added by me]

This was it.  This was the "Hillary Camp Master Plan to steal the election."

The key words as far as what Cenk's saying is "if there is a stalemate" and "everybody."

We are in a very unique position right now.  We might get to the convention and have to candidates separated by a slim margin of delegates.  We might have one canddiate with a lead in the popular vote and ANOTHER in the lead with delegates.  I think both of those can accurately be described as a stalemate.  Personally?  I think these are both unlikely, and I think Obama will win it clean.  But I don't get paid a good deal of money by the Clinton campaign not to think that way.  For them to speculate about it, especially with Hillary looking like she's about to lose, makes perfect sense.

What this Super-Secret Squirrel insider is describing is BOTH camps trying to fend off a brokered or ugly convention by trying to shore up a delegate lead by any means necessary.  It's nothing more than hypothetical conjecture.

What he did not anticipate (though he probably should have) is that the vitriolic hatred of Hillary by the progressive media would IMMEDIATELY transform this as a plan to steal delegates at any cost.  I think the "Source's" characterization of this hypothetical is completely accurate, and I think no matter what either camp says now, this is EXACTLY what they'd do if the convention was coming in the way I describe above.  But it's also inside-baseball, and it's easy to make it SOUND nefarious.  It's just like John Kerry's completely accurate and defendable claim that he "Voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it."

It's true, it makes sense, and it's justified.  But the average VOTER is too stupid to get it, and the average PARTISAN is too dishonest to represent it accurately.  That's why they had to back away from that comment.  Not because it WAS an evil thing to say, but because they learned that objective analysis of the comment just wasn't going to happen.

I was disappointed to see Cenk buying the same anti-Hillary spin.  That said, if he'd have looked at just about any progressive blog he would have thought that's exactly what was happening, so I don't blame him personally.

His second claim though is completely unexplainable.  Cenk took it a step further and said the Clinton campaign inplied they would BRIBE delegates with political appointments, etc.  The entirety of this controversy came from the quote I posted above.  It is clear that NOTHING in there talks about bribing or the spoils system.  I do not know who made that part of it up (because clearly SOMEONE did) but it just makes it sound that much more evil, and it's based on nothing.
< Britney crotch shot | This is how Republicans roll. >
 Display:
Cenk's Analysis of "Pledged Delgate" flap was poorly researched | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)
You may be right but... (none / 0)
You may be right and Cenk may well be wrong.  But I was hoping for a link and or named source for this information.

Did you read it on a blog or see it reported on CNN or...?

by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 11:10:22 AM EST

Well Again I Am Not Blaming Cenk (none / 0)
This was DEFINITELY the lefty-blog spin on this story.

As for my source for the quote, this story originated at Politico.  The quote I posted here is the only quote in their entire article.  Every single story on the "controversy" was based on the Politico article.

LATER in the day more was added, as both campaigns came out and said they wouldn't try to steal each other's pledged delegates.

by TooFolkGR on 02/20/2008 11:35:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know... (none / 0)
Look at this quote again: "I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody's delegates." Maybe it's true that this was simply a slip of the tongue or an honest mistake (but I doubt it).

I admit that I'm pro-Obama and am inclined to believe that the Clinton camp *would* go after delegates, especially in light of the MI/FL/Superdelegate statements they've made. 


But with that said, what else could be meant by "everybody will be going after everybody's delegates" as if it'll be like some shopping spree with 10 people.  I mean, who's "everybody".  ; At this point it's only Clinton Vs Obama.

Can't we assume from that statement that clearly, *Hillary* will be going after Obama's delegates (if you believe the source of the quote)?  Yes, based on that statement I think so.  But we *can't* assume that Obama will do the same, because there is no such statement.

Again, maybe we're reading into it too much into OR maybe, as Cenk suggested, they floated the idea to Politico and then went into damage control mode after the idea was poorly received.

I mean, why not read the source article? By the way, I don't know about you, but I hardly consider Politico to be a "lefty-blog".

by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 01:37:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk anti Hillary? (none / 0)

Cenk has his head so far up Obama's ass he can't think straight. I've been a TYT listerner since 2005 and Cenk generally shows his Republican roots in framing. He's pro Obama show he will only find arguments to fit his bias. He was like that about the US invading Iran. He was screaming that for months at a time, saying the US WILL definitely invade Iran.

Back in the earlier version of the show with Jill and Ben, The Young Turks was really different. Back then before Katrina, when Bush was still popular, TYT was the voice of reason, providing a sane unique take on Iraq that you couldn't find anywhere, even on Air America.  The Turks quoted  newspapers and magazines as well as blogs. But now TYT is like a radio, streaming version of DailyKos. 

by Hue on 02/20/2008 05:29:34 PM EST

Cenk always unfair toward Hillary? (none / 0)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present to you:

Exhibit A and

Exhibit B.


The accused accepts your apology.  ;)

by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 06:09:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who said Cenk is always anti Hillary? (none / 0)

Of course, he's said many times that Hillary has run a good campaign etc. but you know he beats the dead horse of  how she didn't fight Bush enough. (Neither did Obama, but that's alright.)

He's pro Obama, whose really no different to Hillary on issues.

Are you trying to say Cenk is "fair and balance" with the Hillary and Obama stuff?

by Hue on 02/20/2008 06:32:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm saying that he's ripped on *both* of them (none / 0)
He hasn't been neutral because he's not a stenographer.

Also, he hasn't only said that she's run a good campaign, if you watch the first clip he defends her against non-substantive attacks and in the second clip he says she's incredibly competent and confident and would make a good president (sounds pretty damn fair to me).

At any rate, he's a talk show host, not a court or AP reporter.  He's giving his opinion.  He's explained in detail on numerous occassions why he prefers Obama to Hillary.  That in and of itself doesn't mean he hates or is incredibly biased toward Hillary.

While he (like EVERYONE else on earth) may have some basic degree of bias toward the information he interprets, he's based his opinions on these two based on what he knows about them.  If he shares more information that seems to be negative toward Hillary, it just might be because most of the information he came across seemed to reflectly poorly on her based on his criteria. 

It's like (as Cenk says) when people say "oh, you just hate Bush" as if it were a baseless, unsupported position.  But the fact is he's *earned it*.  Why is Hillary the second choice for Cenk?  Again, because she's *earned it* (and I'm assuming in your mind Obama has earned the second spot).

And look, you may not disagree with that and this all might be an issue of semantics.  But you seem to be suggesting that he hasn't given her a fair shake to be his choice for president, and *if* that's the case, I disagree.


by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 06:52:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For someone with the handle ihavenobias (none / 0)

you don't seem to understand what "bias" means. You  seem to equate bias with hate. I never said he hated Hillary.

All I said that he favors Obama, and he will find arguments to support that.  Bias is not derogatory or negative. Bias is different than prejudice.

anti Hillary doesn't equal to hate, either. 

What the hell is "earned it?" It's just politics, where you favor on candidate over another. You can come up with a thousand reasons for why you choose, but you don't earn anything.  

by Hue on 02/20/2008 07:10:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh no (none / 0)
someone who makes a stupid comment about my username? If there was a rolling eyes emoticon, it would be 100% appropriate here.

Yes, he *now* favors Obama, but you seem to think he was *always* that way, that he *went into* that way as opposed to going into it with a clean slate and trying to break down each candidate based on a variety of factors.


If you recall (you've listened since 2005, right?), he didn't start off supporting Obama.  Over the months he leaned toward a variety of different candidates, and after a good deal of time reviewing the available information, he concluded that Obama was the best choice.


That is NOT the same thing as if Cenk had been pro-Obama, anti-Hillary from Day One, and went on to only or mostly provide negative information and opinion on Hillary (when positive info was also available) and or mostly provide positive information and opinion on Obama (when negative info was also available).  *If* that had been the case, then yes, I'd say he's clearly biased in favor of Obama.

But it wasn't and he isn't.

It's insulting to suggest I don't know what bias is and that I equate it with hate BTW.  Some people have both. I am simply pointing out that Cenk's level of bias (again, acknowledging that *everyone* has some degree of bias to some extent or another) in this case is not noteworthy, at least in my opinion based on what he's said and presented on both candidates.

Again I refer you to those two clips. If you want *zero* bias, build a robot and program it to observe and report on its observations.  Otherwise I don't see the relevance unless the bias reaches a certain threshold, at which point it clearly taints a perspective and calls an individual's credibility into question overall or on a specific issue or set of issues.


by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 07:28:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who said Cenk was always anti Hillary (none / 0)

Or that he went into that way? I didn't.

 

by Hue on 02/20/2008 07:49:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You were over the top IMO (none / 0)
Look at what you wrote:

"Cenk has his head so far up Obama's ass he can't think straight...He's pro Obama show he will only find arguments to fit his bias...TYT is like a radio, streaming version of DailyKos."

I mean fine, if that's your opinion, that's your opinion. But it's *my* opinion that you couldn't be more wrong.

He's said several times that Obama will not radically transform America and that an Obama presidency is not some kind of panacea.

He's said several times that Obama hasn't really shown much leadership while in the Senate, and that when it came to funding the war, Obama was no better. He makes a reasonable argument that Clinton has been in a much better position (due to her tenure, connections and name recognition) to really lead and challenge Bush but she hasn't.

Finally, to suggest that TYT is some super left wing outfit is just laughable (that's what I take from the DailyKos comment).  If you disagree with that statement, I'd like you to explain Cenk's positions on free trade/NAFTA and the presidencies of Reagan, Bush Sr and Bill Clinton (the guy who "reformed" welfare and pushed through NAFTA and the Telecom Act of 1996).


by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 08:01:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You should get a prize for being (none / 0)
the millionth person to use his username as a point against him.

by Spencer on 02/20/2008 07:47:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sorry, while i've listened to the show pretty (none / 0)

regularly even when i don't always agree with Cenk (still a member), i rarely read or comment in these forums. had no clue about *mr. bias from the beginning*'s username thing. even thought i was kind of clever (hehe), so did the 999,999 other people.

Ben used to balance out Cenk, and Wes is great. Michael is cool too. 

that said, i know a little about kentx, and medfordtim and rev24 

by Hue on 02/20/2008 08:06:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you (none / 0)
Cenk needs a good foil, I've written about that a few times!

Although in my opinion, the co-host he needs (ok, he doesn't "need" one as I love the show anyway but it'd be nice to see one like this) is someone like Sam Seder who will challenge him on economic/trade issues, but that's a whole other topic.

by ihavenobias on 02/20/2008 08:18:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
liberal blogs are always right (none / 0)
TooFolk, how dare you go against liberal blog orthodoxy!  You, sir, have no place in this community.

David

by yturks on 02/20/2008 05:31:44 PM EST

Right, right (none / 0)
You're definetly right when you say Cenk should do "his show" and not "the blogger's show". 

by Spencer on 02/20/2008 05:38:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Buddy (none / 0)
I'll know I have no place in this community when you guys start refusing my money.   :p

by TooFolkGR on 02/20/2008 07:52:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk's Analysis of "Pledged Delgate" flap was poorly researched | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: