CarbonDate

Well, a man can be too tired if he just got down two minutes ago. A woman with an insatiable appetite sounds great on paper, but just wait until you've given every last ounce of energy to the effort and she starts cooing for "more". posted 05/15/2008 at 02:40:19

What is "sexual peak", anyway? I'm turning 30 in nine days and am generally just as horny as I was when I graduated high school twelve years ago, albeit with a lot more self-discipline. Perhaps I simply haven't worn myself out by shagging everything that moves? posted 05/14/2008 at 01:00:43

Maybe it's just the area I grew up in, but cheating on one's wife was never looked upon as "macho" so much as a sign of low character. Now, bagging another guy's wife? That's macho. :P posted 05/14/2008 at 00:22:41

Yup. Samantha Power had it right the first time. posted 05/14/2008 at 01:34:19

He said over 50, implying that Hillary got the under 50 crowd.

I won't comment on the accuracy of that statement. posted 05/13/2008 at 00:58:07

I like how you qualify it with "best *Dem* President" in 40 years. Is there a Republican President you thought was better? Reagan, perhaps? Nixon?

Considering Bill's competition is limited to LBJ and Jimmy Carter, it's not much of an endorsement. Gore, had he won in 2000, would have so greatly surpassed Clinton that nobody would have been able to follow him. posted 05/13/2008 at 00:45:50

And you can kiss ours. The Dixiecrat faction left a long time ago; don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. posted 05/13/2008 at 00:34:42

Yes, this new image of Hillary Clinton as a champion of the blue-collar working class folks is quite amusing to those of us who actually remember the nineties. Back then they were called "angry white males", and Hillary was the main reason they hated Bill so much. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:58:10

I don't feel like checking your math, but I'm assuming that includes Florida and Michigan? Clintonistas love that fuzzy math. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:54:19

"If you're running to overcome the divided state of politics, you probably won't inspire confidence by picking Sen. Russ Feingold as your running mate."

What? Have you ever heard of a little campaign finance reform bill called, "McCain-Feingold"?

Yeah, *that* McCain. And *that* Feingold. Post-partisan? There isn't a better choice than Russ Feingold -- period. posted 05/10/2008 at 09:17:07

This would be interesting, were it true. In reality, most people tend to marry people who are closer to their own level of physical attractiveness, which means that if a woman is dating an ugly man, then she's probably an ugly woman.

Beautiful women do not, as a rule, marry ugly men unless those men have lots of money. The reverse also applies. There are exceptions, but that is what those are: exceptions to the rule. posted 05/15/2008 at 19:31:17

So shaming superdelegates into voting for Obama is off limits, but scaring them into supporting Clinton isn't? Like you say, it's all part of the game. Which ever candidate plays it better will be the nominee. So far, with the exception of April, which had exactly one contest under which to qualify it, Obama has been the one playing it better. May will either seal the deal for Obama or push it into June. posted 05/02/2008 at 02:25:52

This is true. She's actually the Republicans' best candidate. They say Bill was the best Republican President we've had since Eisenhower, but Hillary would actually be a better Republican President, I think. If a bit more conservative. posted 05/02/2008 at 02:28:08

Which voters will he be disenfranchising after June? I wait with baited breath. posted 04/29/2008 at 20:41:04

Ha ha ha. posted 04/28/2008 at 01:27:15

You understand that Obama's winning, right? And that the winner doesn't typically concede the race while he's still ahead?

I'm just making sure you understand how things look on the ground here in the "reality-based community". posted 04/28/2008 at 01:25:14

By Moveon.org types, you mean Democratic primary voters? posted 04/19/2008 at 12:33:21

Moveon.org represents millions of normal Americans, which is exactly why Hillary and the GOP despise them so much. posted 04/19/2008 at 11:37:29

See, but "pre-emptive" implies there was a threat. We know there wasn't. It was a war of aggression. posted 04/19/2008 at 11:20:04

What a relief. At first I thought Kristol was about to predict an Obama win, but then he goes on to hint at a McCain win. Kristol's record is perfect on opposite day. If he says Obama will have trouble against McCain, expect an Obama blow-out in November. posted 04/07/2008 at 18:48:39

Yes. Samantha Power should be National Security Advisor. Russ Feingold for Vice President. posted 04/07/2008 at 23:09:19

"Stems from their home environment growing up."

Except that Obama was raised by his white mother and white grandparents, so where does that leave your generalization with regards to him specifically? posted 04/06/2008 at 03:53:31

Well, since Hillary wins in the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, she can be the nominee there. Meanwhile, the Reality-Based Community can nominate Barack Obama. Everybody wins! posted 04/01/2008 at 21:58:50

And this has been another "I assert it therfore it is so" moment from... sarainitaly! posted 03/31/2008 at 20:29:37

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,10804,00.html

David Brock's ventures into hit journalism with the American Spectator back in the nineties are a source of embarrassment for him now. That's why he founded Media Matters.

Plenty of reason to oppose Hillary; this isn't one of them. posted 03/31/2008 at 20:16:25

Yes, this specious "electoral vote" margin is much like her early front-runner status: it only lasted until people started voting. posted 04/01/2008 at 00:13:26

Assertion != truth posted 04/01/2008 at 00:10:00

Sorry, I just choked on my coffee. What? posted 03/30/2008 at 20:05:09

But yes, Obama did "play the race card" first, in as much as he had the audacity to run for President as a black man. Had he simply contented himself with his role as the token black guy in the Senate, this would all be over with by now.

Except that many of us, including white men such as myself, see him as something much more than his race. I'm sorry you don't. posted 03/30/2008 at 18:19:21

Yeah! You tell those uppity African-Americans! posted 03/30/2008 at 18:12:39

She can stay in as long as she likes. Hell, she can gear up her "Joementum" and launch an independent bid if she likes. Or the DNC can end this by seating Florida and Michigan after Puerto Rico has voted (with the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan going to Obama, since those 40% showed up explicitly to vote against Clinton) and work a deal where the remaining supers coalesce around the front runner. posted 03/29/2008 at 23:54:55

David Gregory said regarding "first black" President Clinton, "It's okay to say you're black as long as you're playing, but when you try to make it your address, then you've got some serioius explaining to do." I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that was the general sentiment. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:49:26

Are you suggesting that Obama would not be able to carry California, New York, and Massachusetts? If so, please provide some factual basis for that statement, because to me, it appears ludicrous on its face. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:46:11

At some point, it doesn't matter how close the contest is, anymore. Down by 10 doesn't seem like much until it's the final two minutes and you're chucking the ball down field with no time outs remaining. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:42:08

Well, the only "out" we have is for voters to vote against the candidate. Which, thankfully, they have been -- in droves. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:32:24

9 of the last 10? What numbers are you looking at? I see Hillary losing 9 of the last 10.

Besides, she'd have to win 10 of the last 10 with at least 65% of the vote to catch Obama.

Finally, she has no momentum. She lost four of the seven contests in March and twenty-two of the thirty-one contests in February. posted 03/31/2008 at 01:15:24

"Winning streak"? What winning streak? She lost the last two contests. In fact:

January - Obama 2, Clinton 2.
February - Obama 22, Clinton 9.
March - Obama 4, Clinton 3.

Seven contests in March, and Obama won more than Clinton. Period. Clinton's HUGE COMEBACK in March essentially amounted to her not losing by as much as she lost in February. January was still her best month, in which she tied Obama. Pennsylvania gets the entire month of April to themselves, so Clinton might actually have a month where she does better than Obama by virtue of having actually won the only contest.

Then there's May....

Well, she might win Kentucky, but Obama is favored in the other four contests. Then again, given how much she's insulted the smaller states, it's more likely Obama will sweep that month. June? Montana and South Dakota are both likely to swing to Obama, and I anticipate Puerto Rico will, as well.

If she loses every contest after Pennsylvania, she'll still stay in until the convention? Really?

Edwards pledged to stay in until the end too, you know. We all know how that turned out. Fact is, she can't talk about dropping out now. She has to put on a brave face and promise to fight until the end, but if the entire party looks ready to turn against her and possibly render her irrelevant in the Senate, I'm sure she'll read the writing on the wall. posted 03/30/2008 at 00:09:29

We know you're not going anywhere. You haven't gone anywhere for 16 years. Why start now? posted 03/28/2008 at 22:32:37

Point of clarification: it'd be in the Dems' interests if *both* candidates agreed to direct their long knives toward McCain instead of each other. Campaign against the Republican candidate and allow the process to play out as it will. posted 03/30/2008 at 20:01:44

She could always start campaigning against John McCain instead of Barack Obama. That'd probably give her a boost among Democrats, actually. Another bonus is that you'd have two candidates campaigning against McCain instead of two candidates campaigning against Obama. It'd be much less destructive for Democrats as a whole.

That is, unless this really is just a suicide bombing. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:55:26

The problem with your premise is that Obama is not "far left"; he's actually quite centrist.

Hillary's supporters keep recalling 1972. Obama's supporters keep recalling 1968 and 1980. In truth, 2008 is its own very unique situation, the lessons of which will not be apparent for some time. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:51:04

It's not just a question of "being as Republican as possible", but of keeping the unwashed masses shut out of the process. We're here to be told how to vote, pure and simple. Of course, the internet is making this increasingly difficult, but not impossible. And that's really what this is about. If Obama wins, the unwashed masses will be further emboldened. It's about demoralizing the electorate to preserve the status quo. And it appears to be working. Heckuva job, Hillary! posted 03/30/2008 at 19:30:43

Well, I prefer "suicide bombing", but yeah, pick your metaphor and run with it. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:25:34

Two words: sniper fire. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:25:05

Even if what Carville says is true, he shouldn't be airing their dirty laundry for everyone to see. No class. posted 03/28/2008 at 01:17:43

Reinforced structures would have been awesome when I was over there. When I got there, we were sleeping in tents surrounded by t-barriers. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:36:58

It's been quiet because it's harder to launch the rockets and bail when it's so muddy. It rains a lot during the "winter" in Iraq, all of the sand and dust turns into mud. Basically, what a lot of these guys do is put the rockets in the back of their trucks, set them up on the ground, fire them at the Americans, and then bug out as quick as they can. Bugging out is a lot harder when it's all muddy. I remember when I first got there last May; everything was caked with mud, but then it dried up and the rocket attacks started kicking up. I'm surprised to see them starting up again so early; doesn't bode well for when the summer hits and everything's dry. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:35:07

Obama right now has a 171 pledged delegate lead. If Florida is seated "as is", it would drop his lead to 129. However, it would also take away Hillary's political football and put him closer to the magic number. posted 03/27/2008 at 19:13:46

Their message is, "Look, we run this party, so don't be getting all uppity with your ideas about nominating whomever you choose. We chose your candidate for you last year. Okay? LAST YEAR. This was supposed to be wrapped up on Feb 5, and we're really unhappy about you not voting the way we told you to. Sit down, shut up, and do what we say or we'll get another Republican elected. Okay? You can take the scraps we throw you from the table or you can go hungry. It's up to you." posted 03/28/2008 at 02:18:39

Fail. You're out $50. posted 03/26/2008 at 20:02:40

Strange. I've always thought she was rather beautiful. Then again, as the article notes, it takes a special sort of douchebag to even participate in a poll like that, much less conduct one. Says a lot about Maxim, and the people who read it. posted 03/24/2008 at 22:10:53

The bases are the point. They're the reason we invaded. But more important is the reason for the bases: the forward projection of American military might through the region. It's not just about controlling Iraq's oil; it's about controlling all the oil in the Middle East. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:40:45