Edit Preferences
Logout
klondiker's Comments (368)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 368
Obama at West Point
Commented Dec 02, 2009 at 05:36:57 in Politics
“Brilliant essay.
But, now wait for the attacks to begin on you. Here is what I've been hearing:
"He campaigned on it!"
Never mind that the reality on the ground has changed and new information has emerged, requiring the president to change his mind.”
But, now wait for the attacks to begin on you. Here is what I've been hearing:
"He campaigned on it!"
Never mind that the reality on the ground has changed and new information has emerged, requiring the president to change his mind.”
Some Simple Questions After Obama's Afghanistan War Speech
Commented Dec 01, 2009 at 21:11:18 in Politics
“There were people who blindly cheered on whatever Bush did. I've realized that there are also those who blindly cheer on whatever Obama does. There's not that much difference between the two.”
Jax replied on Dec 02, 2009 at 10:46:16
“I don't think you know Democrats! They might give Obama some slack because he's new, but blind loyalty is definitely not one of their strong characteristics.”
Obama and Afghanistan, But Also Some Jokes About Commercials
Commented Dec 01, 2009 at 18:24:47 in Media
“Brilliant.”
Afghanistan: Obama Drops The Other Shoe
Commented Dec 01, 2009 at 08:02:11 in Politics
“This post is right on.
And, I'll make another prediction also: after tonight, many progressives will be cheering Obama on. The White House has discovered long ago that they can do whatever they wish, as long as Obama offers soaring rhetoric to the left as consolation. And, we ALWAYS fall for it. As we will, tonight.”
And, I'll make another prediction also: after tonight, many progressives will be cheering Obama on. The White House has discovered long ago that they can do whatever they wish, as long as Obama offers soaring rhetoric to the left as consolation. And, we ALWAYS fall for it. As we will, tonight.”
pajeroio replied on Dec 01, 2009 at 10:12:13
“I consider myself a progressive and if we are escalating in Afghanistan, I simply cannot and will not support Obama on this one.”
Mikeatle replied on Dec 01, 2009 at 09:47:16
“I'm a progressive, and I won't be watching the prez tonight. I've lost interest in Obama. I'm hoping for someone better who might be persuaded to run against him in the next election.”
Second Thoughts on the Obama Peace Prize
Commented Nov 28, 2009 at 22:45:56 in Politics
“Don't go there. You're really undermining your own argument about deservedness.
Nobel Peace Prizes are not given - and should not be given - for electoral wins. Winning a presidential election, no matter how unlikely, is not a reason to get a Nobel Peace Prize.”
Nobel Peace Prizes are not given - and should not be given - for electoral wins. Winning a presidential election, no matter how unlikely, is not a reason to get a Nobel Peace Prize.”
My Interview with Ann Coulter
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 16:17:51 in Politics
“With the likes of Glenn Beck gaining prominence on the right, I have actually come to see Ann Coulter as the moderate voice among the loonies. It's scary, I know. But, she is far less hateful than Beck, and much more entertaining.”
brooklyncitizen replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:11:33
“that is scary.”
If It Were Me, I'd Be Embarrassed
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 08:52:14 in Media
“WOW. I'd be so embarrassed if that were me.”
Pyrrhic Victoria: Why Men Are Becoming More Like Women
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 08:28:06 in Living
“Articles are these are dangerous because they perpetuate the false notion that gender equality is a completed project and there is no more to be done.
You cite opinion polls to show that women have won the "gender wars." But, opinion polls are unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing. In polls like these, people always answer with an eye to how they will be perceived, rather than what they actually think. Nobody wants to be seen as sexist. You may as well ask them if they think white people are superior to others. Obviously, nobody, not even a racist, would answer that in the affirmative, even if they actually did believe that.
So, the real key to measuring progress should be hard data. Hard data shows us that women still make 79 cents for every dollar that men make, for doing the same job. Hard data shows us that although women are graduating in roughly equal numbers from professional schools, they are still very, very poorly represented among executive level positions. Hard data shows us that while men may claim to want equality in the household (as your polls show), women are still doing the overwhelming majority of childrearing and housekeeping in this country.
So, NO, the "gender wars" are not over. And, by the way, it's not really a "war" - it's a movement to bring equality in our society, which would be beneficial to both men and women.”
You cite opinion polls to show that women have won the "gender wars." But, opinion polls are unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing. In polls like these, people always answer with an eye to how they will be perceived, rather than what they actually think. Nobody wants to be seen as sexist. You may as well ask them if they think white people are superior to others. Obviously, nobody, not even a racist, would answer that in the affirmative, even if they actually did believe that.
So, the real key to measuring progress should be hard data. Hard data shows us that women still make 79 cents for every dollar that men make, for doing the same job. Hard data shows us that although women are graduating in roughly equal numbers from professional schools, they are still very, very poorly represented among executive level positions. Hard data shows us that while men may claim to want equality in the household (as your polls show), women are still doing the overwhelming majority of childrearing and housekeeping in this country.
So, NO, the "gender wars" are not over. And, by the way, it's not really a "war" - it's a movement to bring equality in our society, which would be beneficial to both men and women.”
Sunday Roundup
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 06:29:58 in Media
“Good for you, Arianna!
Do people not know what the First Amendment is about?? If Fox were to fire Glenn Beck tomorrow because he was causing their sponsors to leave, that would NOT be a violation of his First Amendment rights. It would be a business decision made by a company in response to consumer demands.
You'd think that right wingers would be supportive of this because boycotting is as American as it gets. As a consumer, if I don't like what a company is doing, I can vote with my dollars and refuse to buy their products or services. That's what the free market is all about.”
Do people not know what the First Amendment is about?? If Fox were to fire Glenn Beck tomorrow because he was causing their sponsors to leave, that would NOT be a violation of his First Amendment rights. It would be a business decision made by a company in response to consumer demands.
You'd think that right wingers would be supportive of this because boycotting is as American as it gets. As a consumer, if I don't like what a company is doing, I can vote with my dollars and refuse to buy their products or services. That's what the free market is all about.”
TJHOPE replied on Nov 22, 2009 at 08:44:09
“The First Ammendment only protects you from the Government. These asshats think anytime anyone publically disagrees with them that their rights are being assaulted. It's a non-sequitur. Of course, none of these folks has ever been shy about flaunting their ignorance.”
What Was Newsweek Thinking? (updated)
Commented Nov 19, 2009 at 08:39:20 in Media
“Oh, it was definitely posed. When Mitt Romney was running for governor in Massachusetts, many of his campaign commercials had him running or jogging in athletic gear or coming out of the water. I guess they were designed to show his active, fresh take on politics.
I highly doubt that those photos would be used if Newsweek were doing a cover story on him.”
I highly doubt that those photos would be used if Newsweek were doing a cover story on him.”
What Was Newsweek Thinking? (updated)
Commented Nov 19, 2009 at 03:08:08 in Media
“I wouldn't support Sarah Palin if she were the last person on earth, but I found this cover to be sexist.
There are plenty of "athletic" Mitt Romney photographs. I think there's also one of him shirtless in the swimming pool. Would Newsweek use any of those photos when writing a cover story about him? Somehow I doubt it.”
There are plenty of "athletic" Mitt Romney photographs. I think there's also one of him shirtless in the swimming pool. Would Newsweek use any of those photos when writing a cover story about him? Somehow I doubt it.”
ARTIST50 replied on Nov 19, 2009 at 05:24:43
“Did he pose for it or was it a candid shot like Obama in swimming trunks. It makes a difference to me. She positioned herself for this.”
The Palin-Clinton Coffee Klatsch
Commented Nov 19, 2009 at 01:57:44 in Comedy
“Just a factual correction: Hillary never suggested coffee herself. In Palin's book, she has written, "should Hillary Clinton and I ever meet for coffee..."
Based on that, she was asked would she ever have coffee with Palin. Based on that, she responded with the only appropriate answer to that question.”
Based on that, she was asked would she ever have coffee with Palin. Based on that, she responded with the only appropriate answer to that question.”
Tell Us: What Should Restaurant Diners Never Do?
Commented Nov 05, 2009 at 15:47:37 in Style
“1. Don't point out spelling mistakes on the menu or correct waiters' pronunciations of food items, no matter how good your French is. It is rude and pretentious.
2. Don't ogle and/or flirt with the wait staff when you are on a date - it is insulting to your date and to the wait staff.
3. Tip generously. Think of tips as part of the price of eating out, and plan your budget accordingly.”
2. Don't ogle and/or flirt with the wait staff when you are on a date - it is insulting to your date and to the wait staff.
3. Tip generously. Think of tips as part of the price of eating out, and plan your budget accordingly.”
No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama
Commented Nov 03, 2009 at 17:04:23 in Politics
“David is right. There is NO difference between President Obama and Candidate Obama because President Obama hasn't stopped campaigning yet.
On issue after issue, President Obama has offered advice and sound bytes. It's not enough to say that you have a "preference" for the public option. It's not enough to denounce Wall Street in your speeches. It's not enough to say that a commission should be formed to look into the falling middle class. It's not enough to take photos with soldiers' caskets. It's not enough to appear before a gay rights audience (yet again) and say that DADT should be repealed.
On all these major issues, President Obama has not led.
With all due respect David, we need Candidate Obama to start acting like President Obama. The time for rhetoric and speeches and sound bytes is over. It's time to start governing and leading.”
On issue after issue, President Obama has offered advice and sound bytes. It's not enough to say that you have a "preference" for the public option. It's not enough to denounce Wall Street in your speeches. It's not enough to say that a commission should be formed to look into the falling middle class. It's not enough to take photos with soldiers' caskets. It's not enough to appear before a gay rights audience (yet again) and say that DADT should be repealed.
On all these major issues, President Obama has not led.
With all due respect David, we need Candidate Obama to start acting like President Obama. The time for rhetoric and speeches and sound bytes is over. It's time to start governing and leading.”
The Original Power Couple Emerges Again With Hillary on Top...
Commented Nov 02, 2009 at 20:58:53 in Politics
“Admittedly, the Pakistan trip has done wonders for Hillary's profile. I have relatives in Pakistan, and they were stunned that a US Secretary of State was appearing on popular Pakistani TV shows and answering unscripted questions. It's really quite a landmark - I don't think any other SoS has done this level of public diplomacy. Certainly not Condi.
And, I think that's part of the reason why Hillary was chosen for this role. Can you imagine Kerry or Biden doing this kind of thing? They're both great, but I really can't see either of them holding their own in a rowdy Pakistani townhall.”
And, I think that's part of the reason why Hillary was chosen for this role. Can you imagine Kerry or Biden doing this kind of thing? They're both great, but I really can't see either of them holding their own in a rowdy Pakistani townhall.”
Room 333: The Most Haunted Hotel Room in London
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 16:31:03 in Style
“Wonderfully entertaining!! I had so much fun reading this! I too am completely fascinated by things like this. Will have to visit the Langham next time I'm in London.”
Obama's Dover Salute Is an Iconic Image of His Presidency
Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 14:36:50 in Politics
“You argument is good - if it had anything do with what my comment was about.
Here is what I meant by focusing on style vs. substance: the article is celebrating a PHOTO that the president took, while the actual decision about Afghanistan stands as it is.
Similarly, in his health care address to Congress, everyone was so focused on his very moving and eloquent tribute to Ted Kennedy that nobody noticed what the actual substance of the speech was (i.e., I prefer the public option, but I'm not going to insist on it.)
Time and again, we have shown a tendency to be so moved by his words, and give him a pass on the actions. It's like having a partner who stands you up every time, but is so gosh darn charming that you don't want to get angry at him.”
Here is what I meant by focusing on style vs. substance: the article is celebrating a PHOTO that the president took, while the actual decision about Afghanistan stands as it is.
Similarly, in his health care address to Congress, everyone was so focused on his very moving and eloquent tribute to Ted Kennedy that nobody noticed what the actual substance of the speech was (i.e., I prefer the public option, but I'm not going to insist on it.)
Time and again, we have shown a tendency to be so moved by his words, and give him a pass on the actions. It's like having a partner who stands you up every time, but is so gosh darn charming that you don't want to get angry at him.”
Obama's Dover Salute Is an Iconic Image of His Presidency
Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 14:00:14 in Politics
“This really was a sobering image. Thank you Mr President for reminding us about the real cost of war.
That said - I do think that once again, we're focusing too much on style and not substance. An image - no matter how iconic - is no replacement for a sane Afghanistan policy.”
That said - I do think that once again, we're focusing too much on style and not substance. An image - no matter how iconic - is no replacement for a sane Afghanistan policy.”
dispassionateobserver01 replied on Oct 29, 2009 at 14:20:23
“What is the difference between the style and the substance? This sounds to me suspiciously like the 'just words' argument.
What do Generals in a war do? What do CEOs do? What do Politicians do? They order, they command, they request, they write emails, they advice, they persuade, they coax, they cajole, they threaten........ these are all artifacts of discourse. Style is each person's way of doing this work. Fundamentally, we are a society, a nation a region, a polity, because we talk and write and yell at and console each other. Policy is words. Policy is threats.
The substance of this image is a shift in policy - of being honest about the cost of something. Of going beyond the US military's price of 4 million dollars per soldier.
RFK is supposed to have said that everything that is worthwhile is missed by the GDP - well, today, not only is that true, but everything that is worthwhile is dismissed by people, because they think it is worthless since they cannot picture it on one or the other side of a ledger.
The distinction between style and substance is relevant only when the image is at odds with most other images (for example a decision to go to war on flimsy evidence is at odds with claims about patriotism, nationalism, support for the troops etc). So far, with Mr. Obama, there is very little evidence that he doesn't actually mean what he says.”
What do Generals in a war do? What do CEOs do? What do Politicians do? They order, they command, they request, they write emails, they advice, they persuade, they coax, they cajole, they threaten........ these are all artifacts of discourse. Style is each person's way of doing this work. Fundamentally, we are a society, a nation a region, a polity, because we talk and write and yell at and console each other. Policy is words. Policy is threats.
The substance of this image is a shift in policy - of being honest about the cost of something. Of going beyond the US military's price of 4 million dollars per soldier.
RFK is supposed to have said that everything that is worthwhile is missed by the GDP - well, today, not only is that true, but everything that is worthwhile is dismissed by people, because they think it is worthless since they cannot picture it on one or the other side of a ledger.
The distinction between style and substance is relevant only when the image is at odds with most other images (for example a decision to go to war on flimsy evidence is at odds with claims about patriotism, nationalism, support for the troops etc). So far, with Mr. Obama, there is very little evidence that he doesn't actually mean what he says.”
Eating Animals: Jonathan Safran Foer's New Book Asks Why Don't We Eat Pets?
Commented Oct 29, 2009 at 09:10:18 in Books
“When my meat-eating uncle visited China last year, he was appalled to report that some establishments there serve dog and cat meat. Why don't we eat our pets?
The point of this important question is to show that the only reason we don't eat dogs and cats is because we have been socially trained not to. People who eat chickens and pigs without hesitation can't claim any moral high ground over those who eat dogs and cats. There is no difference, except that of your particular society which has arbitrarily decided what is acceptable.”
The point of this important question is to show that the only reason we don't eat dogs and cats is because we have been socially trained not to. People who eat chickens and pigs without hesitation can't claim any moral high ground over those who eat dogs and cats. There is no difference, except that of your particular society which has arbitrarily decided what is acceptable.”
provoked replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 01:45:44
“No, sorry... I disagree. Society doesn't decide what's acceptable or not. Each one of us does - by the choices we make. We don't "need" to eat any animal to thrive. Not a cow, cat, dog, chicken, or pig. If we are discussing this subject, in the comfort of our homes, within miles of a dozen grocery stores there is no "necessity" to kill anyone for "food". There are thousands of options which are better for our bodies and for the environment. We really have to stop blaming "society" for our decisions and start making better judgements based on our own individual code of ethics and sense of "fair play". If we are going to kill and eat animals... let it be for a darn good reason... like "survival"... and not a conveinent "cop out" like "society", "tradition" ... or worst of all "tastebuds".”
HeevenSteven replied on Oct 29, 2009 at 09:26:53
“Mmmm, pets!”
Sunday Roundup
Commented Oct 25, 2009 at 13:34:55 in Business
“First of all, letting these companies fail wouldn't have meant that all those people would be unemployed. It would mean that the companies would be broken up and profitable divisions would be bought out by better, stronger firms. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
Second, I wasn't opposed to bailing the banks out. In fact, many progressives weren't. What we did want was the bail out money to come with heavy strings, in the form of increased regulation, pay standards, etc, etc. The reason why people are angry is not because the banks have been bailed out, but because they've been bailed out with no consequences to them. They are back to business as usual.”
Second, I wasn't opposed to bailing the banks out. In fact, many progressives weren't. What we did want was the bail out money to come with heavy strings, in the form of increased regulation, pay standards, etc, etc. The reason why people are angry is not because the banks have been bailed out, but because they've been bailed out with no consequences to them. They are back to business as usual.”
mratcheson replied on Oct 25, 2009 at 14:14:31
“Since nothing has really changed, we need to seriously consider what we are going to do the next time such a meltdown happens. Like you, I was ok with the bailout, I couldn't see a reasonable alternative. I don't think I'll be so supportive the next time. We on main street are suffering the consequences of the banking industry's gambles anyway, let them suffer for their bad behavior along with the rest of us.”
Hillary Is Still the Best President That Wasn't
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 19:01:53 in Politics
“Hey, relax. It's never a good thing to have fewer democrats, whomever they may be.
As for your question:
Kennedy, Kerry, Deval Patrick - all superdelegates. All supported Obama despite the fact that Hillary carried Massachusetts.
Bill Richardson - superdelegate. Supported Obama despite the fact that Hillary won New Mexico.
I could go on with more, but I don't really want to have these arguments over and over. The fact remains (this is indisputable, so please don't try: neither Hillary nor Obama had enough pledged delegates to win. The race was decided by super-delegates.”
As for your question:
Kennedy, Kerry, Deval Patrick - all superdelegates. All supported Obama despite the fact that Hillary carried Massachusetts.
Bill Richardson - superdelegate. Supported Obama despite the fact that Hillary won New Mexico.
I could go on with more, but I don't really want to have these arguments over and over. The fact remains (this is indisputable, so please don't try: neither Hillary nor Obama had enough pledged delegates to win. The race was decided by super-delegates.”
RedDogBear replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 20:17:37
“"The fact remains (this is indisputable, so please don't try: neither Hillary nor Obama had enough pledged delegates to win. The race was decided by super-delegates."
True. But Obama Won under the rules defined by the Clinton dominated DNC. That's also a fact. As it also a fact that Obama had many more non super-delegates than Clinton.”
True. But Obama Won under the rules defined by the Clinton dominated DNC. That's also a fact. As it also a fact that Obama had many more non super-delegates than Clinton.”
Hillary Is Still the Best President That Wasn't
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 18:56:13 in Politics
“Who are you actually arguing with?
Earl didn't say that she won the primaries. And he didn't say that she will challenge Obama in 2012 (in fact, just the opposite).
And, side note: you have got to be really naive if you think that Hillary is DLC and Obama isn't.”
Earl didn't say that she won the primaries. And he didn't say that she will challenge Obama in 2012 (in fact, just the opposite).
And, side note: you have got to be really naive if you think that Hillary is DLC and Obama isn't.”
Hillary Is Still the Best President That Wasn't
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 18:53:58 in Politics
“Why are Obama primary voters so insecure that every time someone dares praise Hillary, they come swinging out against her?
Earl is not trashing Obama, nor is he suggesting that he didn't win fairly or anything. Everyone accepts and admits that Obama is a good candidate and ran a good campaign and won. But, completely independent of that, people are allowed to express their affection for Hillary.”
Earl is not trashing Obama, nor is he suggesting that he didn't win fairly or anything. Everyone accepts and admits that Obama is a good candidate and ran a good campaign and won. But, completely independent of that, people are allowed to express their affection for Hillary.”
party-of-one replied on Oct 24, 2009 at 08:30:30
“Why do you assume that criticism of Hillary Clinton is based solely on her failed presidential campaign. She has been in public life for decades.”
JimR replied on Oct 19, 2009 at 12:06:17
“And people are also allowed to point out the sleaze and dishonesty factor with the Clintons, are they not?”
Cakey4814 replied on Oct 19, 2009 at 08:15:31
“Not insecure but tired of hearing about "if Hillary was President" crap. Hutchinson was never for Obama and just pounced on this b.s. study to again express his remorse that his candidate lost. Get over it Hutchinson and PUMAS..Hillary lost and it's President Barack Obama..”
Mark Kraft replied on Oct 19, 2009 at 07:12:20
“Not trashing Obama by saying "he wanted and needed her experience to shore up his paper thin resume on foreign policy issues"... when she didn't have more foreign policy experience than President Obama, and certainly MUCH less than Joe Biden?
... and saying "(Obama) also needed to remove the one Democrat who posed any real reelection threat to him in 2012."
That's bull. Hillary got offered a job, because to not do so would've damaged party unity, plain and simple. It was a gimme for her supporters, in order to help buy their votes.
For her supporters to later claim that it was somehow an act of political self-defense for Obama is disingenuous. It's like prostitutes claiming the money left on the nightstand was for protection, rather than services rendered.
Really, the big difference in foreign policy experience between Hillary and Obama is that Obama was right about Iraq. Indeed, Hillary directly went against national intelligence estimates on Iraq, by claiming they had WMDs... and when a later national intelligence estimate said that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons program, she repeatedly talked and wrote about Iran's nuclear weapons program, in an effort to court favor with AIPAC. Even as President Bush was accused of doing the same thing by Olberman and others, which caused him to back off such unproven claims, Hillary was *STILL* making such claims for transparently self-serving purposes.
Unfortunately, Hillary's beligerent neo-conservative leanings are now infecting the State Department.”
... and saying "(Obama) also needed to remove the one Democrat who posed any real reelection threat to him in 2012."
That's bull. Hillary got offered a job, because to not do so would've damaged party unity, plain and simple. It was a gimme for her supporters, in order to help buy their votes.
For her supporters to later claim that it was somehow an act of political self-defense for Obama is disingenuous. It's like prostitutes claiming the money left on the nightstand was for protection, rather than services rendered.
Really, the big difference in foreign policy experience between Hillary and Obama is that Obama was right about Iraq. Indeed, Hillary directly went against national intelligence estimates on Iraq, by claiming they had WMDs... and when a later national intelligence estimate said that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons program, she repeatedly talked and wrote about Iran's nuclear weapons program, in an effort to court favor with AIPAC. Even as President Bush was accused of doing the same thing by Olberman and others, which caused him to back off such unproven claims, Hillary was *STILL* making such claims for transparently self-serving purposes.
Unfortunately, Hillary's beligerent neo-conservative leanings are now infecting the State Department.”
EWeiss replied on Oct 19, 2009 at 00:19:51
“"Obama knew all this about her. He wanted and needed her experience to shore up his paper thin resume on foreign policy issues. He also needed to remove the one Democrat who posed any real reelection threat to him in 2012. Obama quickly took that possibility off the table by back rooming her at the State Department to keep her out of the media and domestic policy limelight."
Yes, that diabolical, paper thin Obama.
I suppose it depends on what your definition of 'trashing' is, but it's disingenuous to say that this is merely a pro-Clinton piece, because it's not.
Also, somebody tell Earl that beating somebody by a couple of points is not "trashing them in popularity". No matter how badly you want to see the person trashed.”
Yes, that diabolical, paper thin Obama.
I suppose it depends on what your definition of 'trashing' is, but it's disingenuous to say that this is merely a pro-Clinton piece, because it's not.
Also, somebody tell Earl that beating somebody by a couple of points is not "trashing them in popularity". No matter how badly you want to see the person trashed.”
jessicajuliette replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 23:20:44
“THANK YOU! glad Obama won, but I have always supported and admired the Clintons, doesnt mean i dont like Barack, but really admired Hilary's committment to public service among other things..
that old "you're with us or you're against us" sounds more like Dubya and his cronies....”
that old "you're with us or you're against us" sounds more like Dubya and his cronies....”
filo replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 21:28:36
“My main problem with Hillary is how gung-ho she was to go into Iraq. She bought Bush's BS hook line and sinker so she wouldn't be seen as soft on terror..If she had asked some questions and stood up and said no I would have a lot more respect for her. I will say I liked having her as a senator.”
AP Asks If Obama Is "Obnoxiously Articulate"
Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 19:01:40 in Media
“Yeah, I hear he's honest too. What a monster!”
ThermoChemist replied on Oct 15, 2009 at 19:28:20
“..and clean and nice looking, too..! : )
“the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
-- Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) said of [then] Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
“He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate. I’ve been impressed with him when I’ve seen him in person”
-- Dubya; Jan. 2007, interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto”
“the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
-- Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) said of [then] Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
“He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate. I’ve been impressed with him when I’ve seen him in person”
-- Dubya; Jan. 2007, interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto”
Why Joe Biden Should Resign
Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 11:14:55 in World
“Yeah, instead we should listen to someone who can't even keep Afghanistan straight from Iraq.
You might want to check your facts: that plan was for Iraq.”
You might want to check your facts: that plan was for Iraq.”
1 - 25 of 368
