mindact's Comments (41)

“this is so idiotic, I'm suprised at my having to respond to it. Let's face it, Hillary had a negative favorability rating both before and during the elections. Her unfavorables ranged b/w 45% - 55%, which was the highest amongst all candidates. This infavorables ran high all through the primaries. It didn't start to reverse until after she started throwing her support behind barry. By implication, the only reason she developed positiive favorability ratings is because she supports the president and hasn't been a pain in the fanny for him.

One other point is that she's not in the line of fire like the President is on a daily basis. By keeping quite and doing her job, without causing a scene, people reward her for it. As for your suggestion that Obama needed her to buff up his "paper thin" resume, well Biden is more of an asset in that regards than Hillary. Let's not forget that even as we speak, it's clear that the president runs foreign policy. Hillary is a voice, just as Gates, Biden, Mitchell et all are all voices that provide counsel to the president.

Could she have been a better president thant Obama, I doubt it. One thing is clear, when it comes to legislative prowess and being a workhorse, she's probably better than the president, but when it comes to demonstrating leadership and developing a clear pragmatic strategy, Obama definitely trumps Hillary. That my friend is the more relevant quality for being the CiC”

“In the case of Obama's decision on troops escalation, he's not driven by this ideology of world dominance and preemption, rather he's trying to figure out what's best for our national security. Afganisthan is the way it is today largelly beacause America got involved with the mujahadeen and left after the defeat of the soviet union. That's enough to cause anyone to be cautious on withdrawing. We might have a situation where Al Quaeda and other terrorists element regroup and no afghani will be willing to aid in crushing them later. But on the flip side, the war is probably not winnable in the traditional sense. Commiting more troops might lead to a soviet union style defeat that will bankcrupt this country. So these a tough choices and Biden can't resign simply because his position or approach wasn't taken”

“Arianna, I have to say you're way off base here. you've generally provided great insights on various issues, but this one here is just out there. Equating the run up to the war in Iraq to this situation is just crass. Here's why, in the case of the Bush administrations willingness to invade iraq, it was clear to the folks debating that there were ideological driven reasons to get involved in the war on the part of the bush administration, hence a case for one withing the administration to resign. Even at that, I can guarantee you that one of the best things that happened to America during Bush's first term is that Colin Powell was there to slow down the drive along the dangerous path the adminstration was taking us. Can you imagine if they had a Bolton running the state department? We would have been toast by now.”

“Definitely think it's racy and not racist and here's why. First of all, it's not blackface. This is blackbody:). Seriously, I think people need to take a chill pill. The concept of blackface is an american thing. The origins were based on the ministrel shows that had white actors in blackface acting like goons and buffoons and then attributed that to blackpeople. It was and is racist and demeaning. Keep in mind, those actors wore black faces with bright white or red lipsticks exaggerating the lips. Their bodies weren't painted black.

France has it's own issues with race, but blackface definitely isn't one of them. They don't have that history so it's not much of an issue for them to see a model painted totally in black. Keep in mind, the publication is French Vogue and not American Vogue. It was meant for french consumption. I saythis as a black man in America, who's experienced racism. When you've experienced real racism, yu definitely know what it looks like. There is no second guessing it. This on the other hand is far from it.”

“Let me ask my own set of questions. What articles of the constitution prohibits the government from nationaliziing or regulating certain industries if it's deemed to be in the national interest? Please point to me the words that says the federal government can't mandate salaries and wages in any situation?

I'm sire they don't exist. You sound like the atheist who says proof to me that God exist. I say to you, proof to me He doesn't exist. Look, the constitution does not address every single situation that exists out that. The Fed is allowed to sign executive orders as long as they do not violate any part of the constitution. Likewise, the legislative body can put law in place as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. If those new laws violate theconstitution, then they can only become law if the constitution is ammended. And we all know that the constitution can be ammended. Case in point, the ammendment negating the definition of blacks as thre-fifth human...”

“the problem is not that she has an opinion and she expressed it. We all have opinions, s0me we keep to ourselves amd the others we express. The context in which we express our opinion matters to most rational people. We all know that officially, the President is against gay marriage, but we're not up in arms against him. Why? because hes not an activist against gay marriage.

Her problem is that she's not just expressing her opinion, but has morphed into this activist crusading against gay marriage. For me personally, gay marriage is one issue that I refuse to take a stand on. Why, because it doesn't affect me. However, I'll take a clear stand against discriminating against gays....”

“In reality, I don't think most folks are angry at Miss California because she answered a question posed to her. If the question wasn't asked by the sweet one, we wouldn't have gotten the answer she gave. Matter of fact, Hilton looked like the intolerant one for attacking miss California.

What changed was miss California going from someone responding to a question to being an activist crusading against same sex marriage. Californians are split amost 50/50 on the gay marriage issue. However most folks on both ends of the issue aren't activist for such a hot button issue. by stepping into the realm of activism, she's implicitly dragged the miss california pageantry into the fray and that's not a good place to be....

Lastly, knowing that she's fundamentally flawed as a spokes person on issues pertaining to the religious right, it's only a matter of time before she becomes a source of embarrassment to them...”

“I'm kind of curious Tanya, have you met either MAxine or Lib to know they're white? Here's some truth for you. Everyone has conversations on race, except, they don't have it with people of other races. Hence, assuming both of them are white, you shouldn't be shocked that they are having the conversation.

Might I add thar everyone wants to have a conversation about race. Blacks folks in particular. It's all good and dandy, but 70% of the problem with black America are things that could be solved internally. It's okay to focus on the other 30% but not at the expense of the70%.

The problem with discussions on race is that people are always looking for a reason to be offended when the discussion starts. Be careful what yu ask for.

FYI, I'm black and proud and oh yes as liberal as they come:)”

“I listened to the broadcast this morning. I thought Mark took a cheap shot at Arianna. The reality of the situation is that Mark tried to poke holes in what Arianna was saying. granted, shareholders equity has largely dissapeared in those banks, but once they rebound, the shareholders stand to benefit once again as long as the shares aren't diluted.

the real issue is what to do about regulating the FS industry. I have missed feelings about the pay cap on executives. it runs contrary to what capitalism is about. Laws of demand and supply wil determine the allocation of resources. Truth be told, there are a lot of capable managers, who aren't on the c-level of those large corporations, who can take the slots of the fat cats. More so, not all managers are motivated by financial compensation. Some are money driven, while others are prestige driven. Also, there aren't enough spaces in the hedge funds or PE firms to take on all the executives from the big banks. It'll sort itself out eventually.

If nothing else, the salary cap will be a good experiement on the allocation of resources....”

“Just let it go. Hilary Clinton is not the president of the US, move on. Richardson threw his support for Obama when it was most inconvenient, during the heat of the Rev wright scandal. That's why the Clintons were pissed off. Because, Richardson's endorsement helped put the life back in Obama's nomination drive. That was indeed a profile in courage.

you want to tlak about people stretching the truth, let's look at Hillaty with snipergate. Even Obama has stretched the truth in his narratvie of his autobiography. bill Clinton is a serial liar. The list goes on and on. all politicians strethc the truth.

There is no evidence of wrong doing at the moment on Bill Richardson's part. Even if he gave a state contract to a campaign contributor, so what? That's what politicians do all the time. As long as there isn't any explicit quid pro quo and the contractor is very qualified to deliver the job, it's okay.

You've obviously not moved on from hillary's loss and you're using this as an opportunity to dump onRichardson. He is a very accomplished state governor and has excel in all his time in public office. He isn't beholden to the clintons. let's move on”

“Here's the deal Earl, you didn't vote for Obama, hence he isn''t accountable to you. If you need to know anything about the case, point to fitzgerald or wait for Obama's public report. For you to think that he should provide an answer to your dumb question is quite frankly, very presumptious on your part.

Here are some facts:
- No criminal wrongdoing on the prt of Obama and his campaign
- Political wheeling and dealing is an American past-time it happens everyday in congress and is not going away

I'm suprised you didn't mention tony rezko and his involvement alongisde Obama in an elaborate scheme to sell Obama's senate seat...”

“Earl. ypu just stated a flat out lie. Obama never said the war will end when the generals decide. he said we will be careful getting out as we were careless getting in. he's also said he will listen to the counsel of the guys on the ground but ultimately, the buck stops with him and he will have to make the tough choices not the general.

The position of leaving the decision to the generals is one from the bush admin and the republicans, which you're a part of...”

“Hip-hop is simply an art -form, pure and simple. It's a vehicle that is used and can be used to propagate varying messages. what's wrong with Hip-hop is not the art-form, the message is the problem. when rappers glorify drugs, guns, promiscuity and homophobia, that's a problem.

There is a chicken and egg relationhsip that exists b/w Hip-hop and life on the streets. It's a vicious cycle that serves to re-inforce each other. While people spend time having an academic debate on what's driving what, people are going to jail and lives are being destroyed. Enough, hold politicians accountable for the harshness and lost opportunities on the streets, but also hold the rappers responsible.

By the way, when you say Barack and Malcom are far froom opposites, which Malcom are you referring to, the early one or the just before his death? Either way, there are very different animals. Just like Malcom and Martin were two different elements to the struggle. I'm not arguing an either or being better, all had their roles to play.”

“Enough of this crap. I've always been a staunch Obama supporter and will continue to be. We went through a very bitter primary season and we've emerged united. James Carville was very instrumental in electing Bill Clinton. The agenda Bill Clinton pushed led to prosperity for most of the country. Carville was instrumental in that too.

During the presidential season, he's been the one democrat that has categorically taken on Sarah Palin from the start. He said she's uniquely unqualified for the VP post. Even Bill has been wavering in his support for Barack, but post the convention Carville has been clear on where he stands. Same thing with Begala.

I'll add that during the primaries, I couldn't stand Carville either, particularly because of how he singled out Bill Richardson. But primaries could get nasty and let's not forget that if Hillary didn't harsh out the Rev Wright and William Ayers stuff then, we would have been in a whole lot of doodoo now. Lastly, Carville was not a part of the Clinton campaign. Granted, he was a supporter, however not as vocal as Lanny Davis.

Bottomline, Carville has always been and will continue to be an asset to the Democratic party. The republicans got in trouble because they had a majority in congress and governed to the right. The democrats will be foolish to follow the same tact. You govern from left of center. Barack isn't a president for just democrats alone, but president of all Americans.”

“Listen, Taylor is calling out some serious vulnerability Obama has. If ot's not addressed, we will loose the election. Yes Hillary would have energized the republican base and turned off some democrats and independents, but she would have fought like crazy. The republicans dind't have a problem making sexist commments about Hillary, but now you have this pitbull with lipstick in a skirt and everyone is cowering. Take the fight to her and her republican cronies. Everything is fair game. It's not enough for the democrats to keep stuff in the blogs. the republicans take stuff to the news talk shows. News flash activists read the blogs, the masses watch TV. The republicans get it, while the demcrats don't...”

“Listen Lay-off Taylor. I was one of the most ardent critics of Taylor during the primaries due to what I considered her blind support for Hillary. Having said that Taylor brings up some very valid points. If the democrats don't wake-up to smell the coffee, we will loose this election. I was talking to a friend yesterday and wondering why the democrats have to repond to the republican attack machin instead of going on the offensive. He said it wasn't in the DNA of the democrats to fight. I think that's true, we lost in 2000 and 2004 because we let the republicans drive the narrative. You don't respond by defending yourself, you respond by going on the offense. I've not heard anyone try to tie in Sarah patrotism by mentioning hte fact that her husband was a separatist and she only got her passport in 2007. Why did she wait till 2007, did she buy into the mumbo jumbo of the alaska independent party?”

“John McCain has always had on crush on Ms Congeniality. He was trying to pull an Edwards by putting her on the ticket. He even went as far as calling her his soulmate. I wonder what Cindy thinks about that.

Now he's in a bind. The first rule as a running mate is do no harm. He was so smitten by her that his raging hormones took over. He so wanted this hot babe that he didn't take the time to vet her. Or even if he vetted her, she charmed the hell out of him that he overlooked all this stuff coming out. Funny thing is that running mates are normally out there in the press. she;s been noticeably absent.

If he dumps her, it shows the fact that all this talk about experience, country first, maverick and judgement goes out the door. It'll become clear that this man, for the purpose of winning an election is willing to risk the future of our country. She will be a ball and chain around his neck for the rest of this election cycle.

Good luck Faux Maverick.....”

“Obama's problem has to do with this belief that everyone has to be positive and we're running a positive campaign. Reality is that negative campaigning works. It might not have worked on Obama until the Rev Wright and American's are bitter stuff came out. When that happened it was like Obama became one of us, the politician who's vulnerable to attacks like everyone else. Hillary started hammering him hard, he didn't fight back and we gave him a pass because the election was pretty much won and he didn't want to alienate hillary supporters post the primiaries. Ih he had gone negative vs Hillary, he would have been in a worse off state at this time. Now John McCain has already shown himself to be regular politician. ennough of all that sweet talk of new politics. The only thing that works against the republicans is hardcore negative attacks. I think Obama has done a good job in waiting for everyone to know that the McCain camp has gone very negative. now it's time for the Obama camp to hit back hard. I think they've been trying to do that in the last ocuple of days. They just have to be disciplined and hit on not more than two themes for a few days.... The celebrtiy ads against obama worked cause the republicans stuck to it”

“Not only that, it was obvious that John McCain is not a "man of faith" but a phony trying to siphon evangelical votes. When he told that phony story of the Cross on the ground, then went on and said two Christians worshipping, he quickly lookeed away and took a false gulp of whatever from his mug. It screamed phony... That man hardly spoke of faith, but gave political stump speeches. He never spoke of faith in a personal way”

“I specifically take offense at that characterization. Condi Rice might not be the most diplomatic SoS, however, she's still the little Island in a very flawed administration. I'll also add that there are several other major failures form SoS. Remember Rwanda? Who was the secetary of state at that time? How about Somalia? Backtrack to the Reagan and Carter years. The secetary of state is only as good as the latitude offered by the administration. Anyone heading foggy bottom in an administration like this has the thoughest job in the country. Stop second guessing the black lady”

“Very brilliant. I was getting pissed off initially, but I realized what Dee dee was unto to”

“In a nutshell, he's been consistent on his views. I'm 100% with him on all he's stated and his positions so far. My only problem with him is that he sought of seems a little too eager sometimes to draw some contrast with us on the left all in the name of seeming tough. Case in point, we've been passed moveOn's brouhaha several months ago. Why regugitate it again in a speech onh patrotism? It amounts to opening an old scab. Totally unnecessary. Also, on the speech at AIPAC, he'd done enough to show his support for the nation of Israel and his commitment to soud diplomacy. Why go a step further to say Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of Israel? That kind of changes the landscape in negotiations. Why didn't anybody vet that policy position”

“The problem is that he hasn't changed his positions except with FISA. Now even with FISA he's position still remains the same, but he was willing to let go off some stuff to get some other stuff to pass. That's what it takes to get things to pass in congress. Bills are always perfect, but as long as some core requirements are met, you can let some other things pass.

On other issues like faith based inititiatives, the Iraq war, late term abortion, NAFTA etc, he's been consistent. The problem is that people probably didn't take the time to research Obama. All they had to do was read the audacity of hope and see that he was definitely a different type of liberal. He isn't an ideologue who demonizes everyone else who doesn't support or aggrees with him. In fact, he even stated that neither the right or the left have a monopoly on good ideas and guess what he said this during the primary season.”

“Here's the case. I think any sane minded person, who knows that a 6 month old festus outside the womb has a propensity to survive in this day and age but is willing to give allow unrestrctedaccess to abortion to such ought to check themselve. That's murder pure and simple. Five month old fetuses is in that gray category of mayba or maybe not. Any fetus less than 5 months is up to the mother, the doctor and whoever she choose to invite in the decision making process.

A ban on late term abortions as long as the physical health of the mother is in jeopadry is where most sane Americans are. With respect to mental distress, that's another issue. If the mother is mentally uncapable, that has very little to do with the ability of the fetus to physically suvivie. In fact, it would be foolish for the state to allow decisions on abortion to be left to a mentally distressed person. They are not capable of making sound decisions for themselves talkless of the fetus.

The state and we as a whole have a vested interest in protecting the santity of life of a fetus in the third trimester. Might I add that any woman who's willing to allow the pregnanacy to advance to that stage and then turn around and try to abort the fetus has lost thier rights to that fetus”

“This crap about barack pandering to the middle is ridiculous. There's nothing new that barack is saying or doing which he's not displayed a propensity to do previously. If you've taken the time to read the audacity of hope you'd understand that he's not an uber lieberal. Yes he's a progressive, but has also been pragmatic.... He even said neither the left pr right have a monopoly on the right ideas.

How do you think he got stuff accomplished in the Illinois senate? By being willing to make some sacrifices in order to pass the big ideas. Bill Clinton triangulated and won two terms. Obama takes a pragmatic and consistent approach to things and some folks who haven't being paying attention are mad....”