This is probably the day Drudge jumped the shark.

Are you kidding?

The Sludge Misreport hasn't had any accuracy since Monica's dress.

(Remember the "Kerry Intern Scandal" that went nowhere?)

Matt Drudge jumped the shark years ago.  No one with half a brain takes him or his "report" seriously.

The Drudge Report is a joke

the waitress in the NPR story also said that Clinton and the campaign people were not charged for the meal, on the manager's orders.  

 why are there these inconsistencies?  even when the waitress says she likes hillary and might even vote for her?!?!  I am disappointed in NPR for producing the story this poorly.  

and how convenient that drudge gets to trump up the *negative* part of the story, without even mentioning the positive aspect of the story, where Clinton was trying to get a sense of the struggles of average workin' folk with two jobs. 

I got a "tip" for ya, anyone that doesn't validate six ways to Sunday anything put up on The Drudge Report is "tipping" back too many adult beverages.

;) 

Tommy, someone once gave me a bit of friendly advice--never start a sentence with "I've got a tip for ya..."

However, my favorite tip is:

"Never pet a dog . . . that's on fire"

Never say anything to a woman that might even hint at her being pregnant unless you see an actual baby coming out of her at that very moment

And my favority tip of all time, from the pages of "Democratic Underground":

"Never ... EVER ... force a fart."

:-)

Oh, they're just getting warmed up. When I heard this story on NPR, I knew that the Flying Monkeys would take off with it and blow it out of proportion. I see that I'm not to be disappointed. Mark my word, if Hillary is the nominee, this will still be circulating on Fascist Radio up until the election. By the time they're done, the story will be that Hillary stole money out of the waitress's pocket.

Nerzog, I know what you mean it's going to be pretty bad.  They're going to use every dirty trick in the book to bring her down.

Which is why Obama would be a far better choice than Clinton, and if the Democrats were smart, in my opinion, they would opt for him as he is a far more attractive candidate than she is.  If she is the nominee, and Giuliani, it will be the nastiest in history.

I think it will be just as nasty irregardless of who the Democrats ultimately pick. Heck, we could run Jesus Christ and they'd trash him.

I just think Obama would rise above it, he just doesn't strike me as someone who would gladly get down in the mud like Clinton would.  He would deftly respond and expose it for what it was, and sound genuine in the process.  Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

Plus, Obama doesn't have near the history or the baggage or the hatred from the rightwing that Hillary does.  I think an Obama candicacy would actually force everyone into being more issue oriented........which is what we desperately need.

I agree about Hillary and baggage, but I'm not so sure about Obama rising above it. I saw him throw a little mud recently, and it was one of his staff members who was behind the effort at keeping Colbert off of the south carolina roles. I'm pretty sure that will come back to haunt him.

:-)  Well put.

that's a load about it being nasty only if hillary is the candidate.  they would be all over obama also.  we've already seen it.  they will make things up no matter who is the democrat.

It's a "load" that is my opinion, you can disagree with it if you'd like. Your gradeschool verbage is cute though.

we've already seen it from the right wing, jumping all over obama with phony stories.  been hiding in a cave?

My point went more to Obama's class than to the rightwing's history........but I guess that went over your head.  Gee, imagine.

no, your point did not go over my head.  i don't care how much "class" any democrat shows.  they're going to be smeared by the right wing.  as in the gore and kerry campaigns.  if you wish to deny the obvious, it won't be the first time.

Too bad you don't give Obama more credit to be able to effectively deal with it without resorting to down-in-the-mud slugging it out like Clinton would, as is their history. 

However, I have more faith in Obama's integrity and skill to combat it with class and fortitude than you do, that is sad.......but considering the way you deal with many here through invective and disrespect, your cynicism is not at all surprising.

too bad that what you just said did nothing to answer my point.  dealing with the right wing slime has been tried numerous times.  and you are making an awfully big assumption about hillary, aren't you?

You seem to suggest that the Left doesn't engage in mud-slinging. Your head's so far in the sand I'm beginning to think you're an ostrich.

not to the extent that the right does. 

You are failing to mention a significant fact: the Right essentially has control of the spewing apparatus. While the Left certainly can engage in smearing the Right has a much more powerful way of getting it out. They are more successful as a result.

.......but considering the way you deal with many here through invective and disrespect, your cynicism is not at all surprising

Very well said Tommy, I advise the ignore button , it may be the only way for this guy to stop his games.

maybe you need to take your own advice.  for someone trying so hard to "ignore" me, you don't do a very good job of it. 

I was talking to Tommy, not you. thank you very much.

you were talking to tommy concerning me.  maybe you can explain why, when i get into an argument with tommy, you show up to take shots at me. 

After the way you have treated others, you are owed no explanation from me. 

the truth "hurts"?

for you it must.

you do understand "ignore", right?  it's not showing up out of the blue constantly to take shots at the person you claim you are ignoring.   that would seem obvious, no?  so do you have anything to add to what tommy and i were arguing?  or are you just deflecting again?   

JLyons, I'm afraid you're quite out of line.

MeFirst was providing a perfectly rational response in pointing out that the smear machine will smear ANYTHING, and the nobility of the subject (Be it Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Kerry) is completely irrelevant. (MeFirst, I hope I am correctly representing your point.)

TOMMY was willfully ignoring MeFirst's point.

Leftside

JLyons and mefirst have been having a childish spat for awhile now. I understand JLyons frustration,mefirst targeted me also. But enough is enough, JLyons please just ignore him, do not egg him on, he is not worth it. 

and just exactly how did i "target" jlyons in this instance?   or you?  the way you ignore someone it to ignore them.   if either of you are frustrated, it's because you won't shut up.

Doris

Thank you again as always, as others have posted on here you are very fair. I was reponding to Tommy however , not talking to that particular poster. 

you were talking about me, saying i was playing "games".   neither you or doris were in on my discussion with tommy and you have offered nothing to add to the conversation.  you just dropped in to make an attack on me, again. 

J-

I understand keep fighting the good fight ;-)

JLyons, Tommy appears to be a big boy, perfectly capable of making informed decisions. This childish habit you have of trying to score points by pointing out that you have an issue with MFirst is well past old and extremely childish. Take your own advise and ignore!

Yes Pearlene and so is everyone else when you butt in with your rants and raves (like calling Sueeld a loon the other day). 

You need to follow your own advice and actually ignore M if your so inclined.  Your little group reminds me of a pack of school yard bullies.

MHK, I feel the same way about the "crew" that seems to go after JLyons on many different occasions. I was wondering yesterday when there was a homphobic poster on the CNN Pelosi thread  spewing some of the most vile hate I have seen on here where those people were?  They remain quiet when there is someone who says things comparing Gays to NAMBLA , but when people like JLyons, Tommy says something the same crew comes out and starts with the BS.

Would you care to cite an example of how individuals have unfairly gone after Jlyons without reason or without specific examples of what they take issue with?  Or should I just take your word for it like when you make disparaging remarks about Metfirst?  The point is that you and Jlyon chime in at every opportunity to attack Metfirst about issues that have no relevance to the topic in question because both of you have a grudge against him.  From the majority of the posts I've read when M takes issue with comments he is specific to the post in question, not some vague attack from the past like you and others are clearly guilty of.  Either pony up with the evidence or let the issue drop. 

I posted on that thread Doris so wonder all you want.  If your looking for an explanation on why no everyone posts on every single item then have you ever considered that not everyone is on here 24/7?  Maybe they felt that other posters summarized their thoughts on this topic and didn't have anything extra to add?  Maybe they didn't feel the need to respond to this individual because he was clearly trolling and his comment weren't worth their while?  

MHK

I see this differently than you do, I do not want to waste anymore time on it. As for mefirst and what he has done in the past, many on here know what he did to me and said about me , you do not have to take my word. I am moving on to todays threads , this one has been soiled.

That is a non-answer.  My advise for you would be to stop accusing folks of wrong doing if your not willing to back it up with examples. 

Any chance of you revising your "opinion" in the face of the overwhelmingly obvious?  It's okay to do that, you know.

It's an opinion about what may or may not happen.....unless you are a fortune teller yours is no better than mine.

luckily, fortune telling is not required here.  a quick look at recent elections will do quite well.

Trying to rise above it doesn't do any good.

Negative campaigning works unless each smear is answered immediately and forcefully which, in case you haven't noticed, is exactly what the HRC campaign is doing.

That's one of the keys to her remaining such a big frontrunner despite indications in the spring she was in for a dogfight.

Negative campaigning works unless each smear is answered immediately and forcefully which, in case you haven't noticed, is exactly what the HRC campaign is doing

And she is doing a good job.

Isn't he the guy that tried to destroy the banking system in the 1st Century by driving all of the bankers away?

The same guy that wanted to feed all of the poor and heal the sick putting big agriculture and the health care system into bankruptcy?

That guy also hung out with some pretty unsavory people as well, like prostitutes. I'd be willing to bet he hung around with the homosexual mafia as well.

He also said something about camels being better than a rich man, as I remember. These guys would be right at the front of the line when it came to persecuting the guy.

Not to be a nit picker, but "irregardless" is not a word. If it was a word, it would be a double negative, meaning thatit would mean: with regard to. Irregardless is up there with "aks" and "flustrated" as major insults to the English language.

If it's Obama they'll start by using his full name, and end up by referring to him only by his middle moniker.  No matter who the Dems put up, the VRWMC will seek to Swift-Boat them.

That is a big fear of mine, can the Dems finally fight back? I know Senator Clinton has beaten them. 

Man, once again discussions about looks and actions, not substance. It should be clear to everyone (28% excluded) now that the Republicans have no issues to run on. They're really gonna hate next year's landslide loss.

...and after they lose, they're going to become even ore hateful and vengeful because that is the nature of neocon thugs.

Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK: Cheap

 Everyone knows that Democrats HATE to spend money, or give money to workinng folks.  FACT: Single mothers, working two jobs, waiting tables overwhelmingly vote republican.

 I have to call this one for: Drudge, the best investigative journalist in the world.

(LOL How'd I do? LOL)

Well done.

You're spelling's a little better than JuTru's.

LMAO Eddie!!!

No joke, you actually had me until I reached the end and saw your name!!!!

Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:

It was a close call, but I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy instead of a bottle in front of me.

tee hee!

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

- Tom Waits

"Tom Waits for no one."

Sorry, Snoop. Just wanted to give old Tom some credit

That's OK, but I have a better quote:

"Religion was mostly superstition, science for the most part sciolism, popular education merely a means of forcing the stupid and repressing the bright, so that all the youth of the rising generation might conform to the same dull, dead level of democratic mediocrity."

Charles Waddell Chestnut, Conjure Tales and Stories of the Color Line

great parody, but every time I see that

"Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check"

it just makes my skin crawl.

Eddie, BRAVO!!!!!!!

Guess this story was too tough for Sludge to figure out.  Gee - I wonder what happend to that $100 tip?  And why is wasn't "distributed properly?"  You don't suppose some poor sap saw a Benjamin and glommed onto it figuring no one would know?

 As for Sludge - it takes more than a hat to make a reporter...

Drudge will promote anything that will smear the Clintons.

They ALL will - even the 'drive-bys'.

Clinton’s campaign started a new Web site that it will use to defend against this type of thing.

Anyway, getting back to the main point of the article:

Has Drudge or anyone stopped to think about why there might not be a tip "Where Hillary was sitting"?

Maybe putting $100 exposed on a table might not be the most prudent idea? Maybe that would be even stupider if a recognizable politician was at the table and people are more likely to be hanging arount? Maybe handing the money to an employee would be a safer and much more sensible thing to do?!

I think this is a stupid 'issue' compared to the REAL ISSUES we have in this country. Then again... I have to continually remind myself that the average Joe and Jane isn't all too bright so trash such as this does have an appeal, sad as it is.

I hate to proffer this, but Hillary is unelectable. We had better come to grips with that fact, as sad as it may be, if we want to win the WH.

The next time Hillary leaves a tip, her detractors will accuse her of bribing the restaurant staff to not say she didn't leave a tip.  Tips = hush money.  

I HEARD THIS REPORT ON NPR )National Propganda Radio) and I heard NO CORRECTION my by NPR, at least not during the rush hour period when they first aired it!! If any of you have any doubts about the corruption of NPR this instance should put your minds to rest. Here are the bios of the two men directing NPR, both veterans of the U.S. government's own propaganda division!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2101415

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2101420

 MM is so laughable.  For one thing, Hildog is eating at a restaraunt...and she didn't tip the waitress PERSONALLY.  If you're running for POTUS, no wait, if you're just a decent person, you tip the server, right then and there.  At the least, you leave 2 bucks by your plate, no matter how little your meal cost (or if it was "on the house") and you make sure that your server gets it if there's a question of who may pick it up. That's just manners.  It makes no dif what Drudge said, what NPR said, or the fact that they ALL printed the restaraunt's reply that the group paid for their meals and then tipped an egregious amount of cash that supposedly wasn't "distributed". The point is that HRC has no friggin manners, is condescending, and is wholly self-centered. Good luck with that.

"The point is that HRC has no friggin manners, is condescending, and is wholly self-centered. Good luck with that."

Laughable.

Most politicians - I'd say probably 98-99% - are exactly just like that. Same thing with Righty talkers... especially Rush.

THE POINT HERE IS THAT THE MEDIA ARE SMEARING CLINTON WITH A FABRICATED PSEUDO SCANDAL about her implied selfishness and bad manners. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HER MANNERS ARE LIKE AS YOU DON'T KNOW HER PERSONALLY. But we have evidence of malfeasance on the part of the media. Most distubing is the supposedly National "Public" Radio pulling a stunt like this. They ran the smear at rush hour and then, if what MMFA notes here is correct, ran their "correction" at a later time when listenership is down. The damage is done. And we the public end up knowing NOTHING substantive about the candidate, only a smear.

Short, Here's a little anectdote for you. I worked for many years at a nice country club near Vail CO that had extended an honorary membership to a former US president. Almost every day the prez came out to play he would approach the valet at the end of the day, pull out his wallet and then exclaim, "oh, I don't have anything small, I'll get you next time". Luckily for us tipped staff, he was often playing with someone like Bob Hope or Leonard Firestone. Guys like that never have anything smaller than a c note and allways tip. I guess the former prez just could not get over his midwest upbringing. Just like my Dad who thinks a quarter is a big tip, five times more than he thinks the server deserves.

Where do you get that one excuses the other?  I plan for the tip when I go to a restaraunt (here in the Midwest, or anywhere else).  We're not talking about Limbaugh or Drudge, Bob Hope, ex- presidents, or anyone else: this person is running for the presidency, supposed to be out showing her support for the "little" people, but acts like a snotty, obnoxious boor instead. She never had a chance in hell of getting my vote (and I'm a working woman), but shouldn't she at least try a little harder? 

NPR ran this story yesterday, and for all intent, it was about reactions to everyday people coming in contact with candidates. The waitress was working several jobs to raise her children. She seemed not to care to much about not getting the tip as the real issue was how she felt about Clinton. Thisd morning, NPR follwed up on the story (tip) and the reporter admitted that he failed to follow up with the clinton campaign and was negligent in basic reporting. That was aprofeesional way to handle his mistake by admiting he was wrong. Lets see Rush, Sean or O'reilly admit they are wrong - but then agqain they would be spending 99% of there time doing that. Also, NPR followed the waitress story with a women who had asked Obama about healthcare insurance while tearfully explaining that her brother was in a late stage cancer. Obama said he try to write he letter. There was a follow up with her later and asked if she had gotten the letter. She said no, but likethe waitress, said it was unimportant next to fact they she was able to tell a presidential candidate the crisis she was facing. Remember, we have been under the thumb of a president and an administration who would only allow select repuiblicans to attend his "public" campaign events.

So, Drudge was selective in what he "reported"? 

What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?