Thursday, May 29, 2008


Who is Nedra Pickler and why is she saying all those terrible things?

The bias and dishonesty of the press in this entire nominating process has been well known. But it still needs to be pointed out and names named and people held accountable whenever it rears its ugly head.

The latest example is from an Associated Press writer named Nedra Pickler.Her most recent application to rise in the ranks of America's journalistic politburo is a piece about Florida and Michigan on May 28th.

In an article under a byline by the Associated Press (which is showing every day the need to rename their wire service the Disassociated Press since they are getting further and further from reality) Pickler tells us that according to Democratic lawyers seating the entire Florida and Michigan delegates may be illegal.

Pickler seems to be unaware that in 1789 the Constitution gave the sole power to make laws to the Congress and not the Democratic Rules Committee. DNC rules have nothing to do with the law. In fact Arlen Specter has already said he thinks the DNC punishment in question is probably unconstitutional and wants a congressional investigation if the DNC does not seat all the delegates. But Pickler, who has a history of seeing things through Obama colored glasses reports to us that it might be illegal to seat all the delegates.

Pickler also writes that it would be a real problem to fully seat both delegations because not only might it be illegal, but how in the world could anyone figure out how to divide the delegates? How oh how could it possibly be done?

Obviously Pickler and her editors haven't considered the possibility of actually using the results of the elections as a way to do it especially since that is what elections are for in the first place. But for some reason this possibility eludes Pickler and her editors.

Then Pickler adds: "That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state."

That is what she said. And her editors let it go. Obama had his name pulled from the ballot.

One imagines Pickler trying to convey an image of a gallant Obama, engaged in a struggle with Democratic party leaders in Michigan who are trying to pull his name from the ballot against his wishes, Obama on one side and party leaders on the other, in a monumental tug of war, as Obama struggled against the forces of evil to stay on the ballot. Yes, in Pickler's scenario there was a real knock down drag out fight in Michigan with Obama putting up the good fight, but alas to no avail as the gallant warrior bruised but not bowed, clothes tattered and torn had his name pulled from the ballot by those no good Michigan Democratic Party leaders.

At this point one imagines Pickler dabbing her nose and eyes with her hanky, then soldiering on to finish her article.

I suppose this astute political journalist never saw the story in the Des Moines Register of Oct 2007, that Obama, as a political ploy because his internal polling showed he was going to get buried in Michigan by 20 pts, did his own pulling, He did it both to pander to Iowans and their first in the nation status, and in the hopes that others would follow suit ( only Edwards did) and embarrass Clinton as the only name on the ballot.

What Pickler also doesn't seem to know ( or maybe knows and chooses to ignore) is that Obama arranged to have his name on the ballot represented as "Uncommitted" and it was well publicized throughout Michigan. Which is why "Uncommitted" drew 40% of the vote (combined with Edwards), the second highest total behind Clinton. John Conyers even financed radio commercials to get the message out.

As for how to divide the vote, it seems beyond Pickler's ability ( giving her the benefit of the doubt). But it's fairly simple and straightforward. Give Edwards the 14% he has averaged in all his primaries and give Obama the remaining 26%. Given that Obama's own polling showed him losing by 20 pts and that Clinton received 56% of the vote, my formula seems to have a lot more validity than Pickler's fantasies.

But our intrepid journalist wasn't finished. She wrote this - "As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination.."

The question of course is clear to who? The majority of people in the Democratic Party who have voted for Clinton to be the nominee? Is it clear to them? Is it clear to the pollsters and the people who do the electoral vote projections that shows that Clinton beats McCain handily in electoral votes while Obama gets crushed by McCain? The projection as of May 28th shows Clinton beating McCain in the electoral college 327-194. Those are landslide numbers. What the projection also shows is that Clinton wins Kentucky and W.Va. and Obama loses both.

But Pickler says "it's become clear that Obama will likely win the nomination".

Is it really clear ? Or is Pickler thinking about her future and trying to show the same collection of people who called Bush's case for war in Iraq "irrefutable", that she can be as inept and biased and corrupt as they are?


Anonymous said...

Thank you for this post! I have noticed the Nedra Pickler articles as well as several others (like sara bagler) that are so biased they read like PR pieces for Obama. I even wrote the AP about the biased articles and cited the authors. Of course never heard back. If the AP can't just objectively report, who can? I have completely lost my faith in the media as a whole. Blogs are becoming my only source of trusted information.

gerard n. said...

great writing...

keep up the good work....

the farce this election is turning into is shocking... what has happened to america?

the more i see what is happening the more i believe clinton needs to run as an independent to clean up the system...

here is an interesting article in the NY Times about a democrat, Representative Robert E. Andrews, running for office in New Jersey and the treatment the democratic party is dishing out to him... just imagine what the democratic party has in store for Hillary...

Bill Sanford said...

Good Post - thank You.

I have been noticing that the AP has gone somewhat leftwing, favoring Obama. That is too bad. Whatever happened to Professional pride in journalism?

I would fire Nedra Pickler. I certainly will not read her. Blogs, here I come.

disgusted in Tunbridge Wells said...

Wonderful post - as usual, thank you!

Save America - Save Democracy! said...

Reminds one every day this campaign continues of the dire need for the return of the MEDIA OWNERSHIP REFORM ACT - calling for an end to corporate ownership of all media airwaves, thus stopping them from killing all dissenting views and deliberate propagandistic and misinforming the public.

Democracy relies on dissenting opinions and on accurate facts. Our democracy is in danger - and the media is the one destroying it. Bring back MORA!

Anonymous said...

I had to come back and revisit this post. It is now June 3rd (you know SD & MT primaries) and the AP has released articles stating the race is over and the Obama has "clinched the nominaton" (oh, excuse me "effectively clinches") Talk about biase this takes the cake. Ok all AP writers lets supress votes by floating totally Obama-biased statements. The AP is totally unreliable just like all the rest of MSM.

Anonymous said...

I just read a piece by Nedra Pickler accusing Rush Limbaugh said Michelle Obama used the term "whitey". She is wrong as usual. Rush never said Obama used that word, he has commented on others in the press who have reported on the story, but he never used it directlly sdaying she said it. Nedra, get it right before you write the liberal lies.

Anonymous said...

NEDRA PICKLER is an idiot. She still thinks Al Gore won an Academy Award. This is a complete lie and she continues to spread this lie. Al Gore has never won an Academy award but the Director and Producers of the movie he was in did. So why does the media knowingly continue to tell everyone he won an Oscar when he didn’t? Because they think you will not understand the truth, the media thinks your a fool and will believe anything they say. The media are full of a bunch of elitists and they think your too stupid to do a little research on the internet and find out that they are lying. They also do not make themselves available to the public to respond to their news stories because they know people will tell them they are lying. They know they are lying but if they say something enough times they know they can change the truth with misinformation. How pathetic that we live in times like this that people knowingly mislead the public.

Lenny in Spring Hill said...

I have never written a post in my life - too busy, but I had to Google Nedra Pickler after I read her article published 8-14-08 regarding the book The Obama Nation. I have not read the book and cannot comment on it, but her piece was so biased I thought that I was reading a response to the book from the Obama camp. I could not tell where the Obama response ended and the writer's feelings started - they were one and the same. Shame on you for passing yourself off as an unbiased journalist.

Let's expose all liars with the truth said...

I totally agree, the truth about the so-called news media is finally emgerging to mainstream Americans.

On AM 640, excerpts from the latest OJ trial were heard. A prospective witness had answered written questions. The defense lawyer, while questioning her, turned to the 'media' aspect of OJ(related to influencing opinion).

The prospective witness replied (I paraphrase here), "News has become more entertainment than truth, so I believe you have to research the facts for yourself."

Liberalism is truly similar to communisim; they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them, while screaming to the world about tolerance. That is code for "we tolerate anyone's beliefs... but anyone who disagress with us in clearly intolerant."

I believe freedom of speech and religion are truly in danger in this, the most free country on the planet.

Anonymous said...

Just stumbled across this post. Might you be reading too much into the syntax here? "Obama had his name pulled," etc. ... One can, indeed, have one's own name pulled. The grammar is correct. ... FYI.

Marc Rubin said...

"Just stumbled across this post. Might you be reading too much into the syntax here? "Obama had his name pulled," etc. ... One can, indeed, have one's own name pulled. The grammar is correct. ... FYI."

This wasn't about grammar it was about accuracy. Nowhere did she make clear that it was Obama who pulled his own name. She made it sound like he had nothing to do with it.