May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
EspressoAtNoon
Recent comments by this user
Obama On Hamas Smear: "We Don't Do Nuance Well In Politics"
I agree, and Menachim Begin, who would eventually become Israel's Prime Minister claimed responsibility for the bombing of the King David Hotel bombing, which by the way killed innocent Brits. The Zionist terrorists were trying to run out of Palestine. posted 05/12/2008 at 20:59:34
US Makes Changes To Cremations For Slain Troops
What is so disrespectful? Not trying to be disagreeable, but when someone is dead and their body is going to be burned to nothing, but ashes, is it really disrespectful that someone's beloved pet had also been burned to ashes there?
Are humans not also animals? Are animals so inferior that our dead and rotting corpses can't even be burned to ashe in the same place that an animal's carcas was burned?
This stuff is getting way too overthought. posted 05/10/2008 at 00:09:46
Are humans not also animals? Are animals so inferior that our dead and rotting corpses can't even be burned to ashe in the same place that an animal's carcas was burned?
This stuff is getting way too overthought. posted 05/10/2008 at 00:09:46
Bush is sh!t, but as an animal lover I'd be honored to be cremated with other animals. posted 05/09/2008 at 23:48:05
Obama Camp Faces Major Obstacles In Plan To Help Clinton Pay Off Debt
Will he be forced to disclose to us in the futue when our future dollars are going into the Clinton's pockets? posted 05/09/2008 at 00:18:38
I watched it live for over 5 hours on the night of the NC and Indiana Primaries. I don't have a clue where I'd find the footage, and I'm not about to dig through 5 hours on YouTube to find you the exact quote.
He NEVER said Obama was involed or agreed to anything. He told Chris and Keith that the campaigns WOULD BE discussing it as a way to end her campaign. Just like I said before. posted 05/09/2008 at 00:14:50
He NEVER said Obama was involed or agreed to anything. He told Chris and Keith that the campaigns WOULD BE discussing it as a way to end her campaign. Just like I said before. posted 05/09/2008 at 00:14:50
Hill and Bill are worth $110 million. Why in the hell should hard working Americans who send what they can to Obama end up replenishing the Clintons' fortunes. That goes against everything the Obama campaign stands for. Why not just give greater tax breaks to the rich at our expense?
This mess and financial mishap was all of the Clintons' making. Let them suffer with only $100 million left in their pockets. Boo "fucking" Hoo!!! posted 05/09/2008 at 00:10:36
This mess and financial mishap was all of the Clintons' making. Let them suffer with only $100 million left in their pockets. Boo "fucking" Hoo!!! posted 05/09/2008 at 00:10:36
Tim Russert mentioned this on Tuesday night after the results. He stated that the campaigns would be discussing how he might help to pay off her debts to get her out of the race. posted 05/09/2008 at 00:01:09
In addition to my earlier posts think about this:
She's not even getting out of the race knowing full well she can't win. So she's in essence building up more and more debt for this "vanity tour" of hers, which we will ultimately pay for.
She is loving the fact that "nice guy" Obama will gladly pay at the end which will only deplete his resources for the fall, piss off his own contributors, and thus help her prospects for 2012.
This really is rubbing me the wrong way. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:59:21
She's not even getting out of the race knowing full well she can't win. So she's in essence building up more and more debt for this "vanity tour" of hers, which we will ultimately pay for.
She is loving the fact that "nice guy" Obama will gladly pay at the end which will only deplete his resources for the fall, piss off his own contributors, and thus help her prospects for 2012.
This really is rubbing me the wrong way. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:59:21
I love Obama, but if he gives a penny to Hillary Clinton after her undignified and reprehensible campaign, I will NEVER contribute another dollar to his campaign again.
Don't throw our hard-earned money at the polarizing, special interest, centi-millionaire couple that represents everything we're fighting against as though you've got a truckload to "throw away" or I'll lose all respect for you!!
They're worth $105 million dollars!!!! The money you have came from hard working and struggling Americans. How dare you even consider replenishing the fortunes of these people at our expense!! posted 05/08/2008 at 23:42:44
Don't throw our hard-earned money at the polarizing, special interest, centi-millionaire couple that represents everything we're fighting against as though you've got a truckload to "throw away" or I'll lose all respect for you!!
They're worth $105 million dollars!!!! The money you have came from hard working and struggling Americans. How dare you even consider replenishing the fortunes of these people at our expense!! posted 05/08/2008 at 23:42:44
Should Hillary Drop Out? Absolutely not!
-What things worth mentioning has she ever gotten done?
She ran one of the most dispicable and divisive campaigns in my lifetime. Her political strategy (disregarding caucuses and putting all their eggs into that first Super Tuesday) was a HUGE blunder. She has debtors all over the country who haven't been paid by her campaign. Her campaign is in debt, was poorly managed, and will be the future blueprint about how to not run a Presidential Campaign.
Her attempts at getting Healthcare passed were unsuccessful due to her methods (blatant disregard for Dem and Repub Congressional and Senate Reps).
Her experience has been proven to be lies. (Bosnia, Northern Ireland, SCHIP)
She and Bill race baited every step of the way. When she had her first bad debate on MSNBC she screamed "Sexism".
She agreed and signed off on disenfranchising Michigan and FL voters. But then when the states left on the game board made it clear she couldn't win by the number of earned delegates, she started to pretend to give a crap about MI and FL voters (despite her agreement to disenfranchise them) and then she tried to change the rules in the fourth quarter.
And then the real irony: she claims to want the voters voices to be heard (every single one), when her ONLY route to the WhiteHouse is to have the Dem Elites (Superdelegates) disenfranchise EVERY voter, and yet she's ok with that.
Give me a break!
Clinton supporters live in their own fantasy land. posted 05/09/2008 at 17:51:59
She ran one of the most dispicable and divisive campaigns in my lifetime. Her political strategy (disregarding caucuses and putting all their eggs into that first Super Tuesday) was a HUGE blunder. She has debtors all over the country who haven't been paid by her campaign. Her campaign is in debt, was poorly managed, and will be the future blueprint about how to not run a Presidential Campaign.
Her attempts at getting Healthcare passed were unsuccessful due to her methods (blatant disregard for Dem and Repub Congressional and Senate Reps).
Her experience has been proven to be lies. (Bosnia, Northern Ireland, SCHIP)
She and Bill race baited every step of the way. When she had her first bad debate on MSNBC she screamed "Sexism".
She agreed and signed off on disenfranchising Michigan and FL voters. But then when the states left on the game board made it clear she couldn't win by the number of earned delegates, she started to pretend to give a crap about MI and FL voters (despite her agreement to disenfranchise them) and then she tried to change the rules in the fourth quarter.
And then the real irony: she claims to want the voters voices to be heard (every single one), when her ONLY route to the WhiteHouse is to have the Dem Elites (Superdelegates) disenfranchise EVERY voter, and yet she's ok with that.
Give me a break!
Clinton supporters live in their own fantasy land. posted 05/09/2008 at 17:51:59
Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?
.. all based on your reaching assumption that people didn't know Obama was in the Senate.
We all know he wasn't in the Senate, so the premise of your attack has crumbled. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:10:13
We all know he wasn't in the Senate, so the premise of your attack has crumbled. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:10:13
"in the race" should be "in the Senate". Oops! posted 05/10/2008 at 12:08:16
Virginia Senator John Warner (Republican) is retiring this year. Former VA Governor Mark Warner (Democrat) is running for that spot in 2008. Mark Warner is really popular in Virginia so should be a shoe-in.
So if Mark wins, then Virginia will have gone from one to two Democratic Senators (Mark Warner, Webb). Webb isn't up for re-election in 2008. I'm not sure how they'd handle his vacant seat - whether he could appoint someone for the remainder of his term, but a worst case scenario (assuming Mark Warner wins) is that Virginia would still have one Democratic Senator (Mark Warner) in the race. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:07:01
So if Mark wins, then Virginia will have gone from one to two Democratic Senators (Mark Warner, Webb). Webb isn't up for re-election in 2008. I'm not sure how they'd handle his vacant seat - whether he could appoint someone for the remainder of his term, but a worst case scenario (assuming Mark Warner wins) is that Virginia would still have one Democratic Senator (Mark Warner) in the race. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:07:01
Florida and Michigan? You mean the two states that Hillary agreed and signed off on to disenfranchise?
The irony is even if Hillary was given both those states' delegates and popular votes, she still can't get a majority of elected delegates nor a majority of the popular vote.
That means the only way she can win is to convince the Democratic elites (superdelegates) to overturn the will of the voters.
So she pretends she's about voter rights, while she simultaneously is lobbying the elite to disenfranchise the ENTIRE electorate.
You Clintonites live in your own fantasyland. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:38:13
The irony is even if Hillary was given both those states' delegates and popular votes, she still can't get a majority of elected delegates nor a majority of the popular vote.
That means the only way she can win is to convince the Democratic elites (superdelegates) to overturn the will of the voters.
So she pretends she's about voter rights, while she simultaneously is lobbying the elite to disenfranchise the ENTIRE electorate.
You Clintonites live in your own fantasyland. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:38:13
She wanted to grant the Telecom comanies immunity. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:34:04
I'm hoping Webb is Obama's VP. I just think it makes the most sense:
- bolsters ticket with military experience (makes American soccer moms feel safe)
- takes away John McCain's ONLY redeaming quality - he served in the military
- delivers the huge swing state of Virginia
- Webb is a pitbull - he got in George W's face when Bush asked him about Webb's "boy" (who's serving in Iraq). He can go after McCain with authority, military credibility, and won't pull punches.
- I love the way he's positioned on the war (against it), Iran (he tried to get a bill passed that would make George W. come back for authorization before he can attack)
McCain's strategy will be to make the case that ending the Iraq War is about defying "military expertise" - both his and Patreaus's.
Now imagine Jim Webb throwing that argument back in their face. Look at his military credentials (they are far superior than McCain's):
A 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Webb served as a Marine Corps infantry officer until 1972, and is a highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran. During his four years with the Reagan administration, Webb served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, then as Secretary of the Navy. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:32:22
- bolsters ticket with military experience (makes American soccer moms feel safe)
- takes away John McCain's ONLY redeaming quality - he served in the military
- delivers the huge swing state of Virginia
- Webb is a pitbull - he got in George W's face when Bush asked him about Webb's "boy" (who's serving in Iraq). He can go after McCain with authority, military credibility, and won't pull punches.
- I love the way he's positioned on the war (against it), Iran (he tried to get a bill passed that would make George W. come back for authorization before he can attack)
McCain's strategy will be to make the case that ending the Iraq War is about defying "military expertise" - both his and Patreaus's.
Now imagine Jim Webb throwing that argument back in their face. Look at his military credentials (they are far superior than McCain's):
A 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Webb served as a Marine Corps infantry officer until 1972, and is a highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran. During his four years with the Reagan administration, Webb served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, then as Secretary of the Navy. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:32:22
He does have an impressive resume, but unfortunately the American public won't be perusing his resume - they'll be watching him and seeing what he says and how he says it.
This job is all about communication. Can a candidate articulately convince people their positions are best laced with facts and substance and deliver it in an articulate manner?
If he can't make the case on his feet (which he failed miserably in the debates) then the people will think he's a lightweight. I'm sure if the moderators had asked each candidate to answer their questions in writing and that they'd post the answers on line, Richardson probably would have done better.
But on his feet, he's painful to watch - makes me wince, in fact. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:13:53
This job is all about communication. Can a candidate articulately convince people their positions are best laced with facts and substance and deliver it in an articulate manner?
If he can't make the case on his feet (which he failed miserably in the debates) then the people will think he's a lightweight. I'm sure if the moderators had asked each candidate to answer their questions in writing and that they'd post the answers on line, Richardson probably would have done better.
But on his feet, he's painful to watch - makes me wince, in fact. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:13:53
David Gergen, longtime Clinton supporter, said that if Obama went with Hillary for VP he'd probably have to hire a food taster as well. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:00:42
A lot of people here seem to favor Richardson. I like Richardson, but I was not impressed with his debate performances.
In fact, he came across as light-weight. His responses weren't articulate and he appeared poorly on stage. He didn't address issues in depth and in a convincing manner like say, Joe Biden, had. He couldn't really articulate the illegal-immigration problem in a way that sounded unbiased and addressed all the many factors. It was all "amnesty and open borders" kind of rhetoric. This issue is VERY important to Independents, Republicans, and to many Democrats. Now that we're moving from the Primaries to the General Election, this topic will be a lot more prominent.
To counter McCain's National Security experience: I'd select Biden, Webb, or Clark.
Biden is from Delaware, so, for that I'd pull him off the list.
Jim Webb, from swingstate Virginia, is TOUGH. He could make all the attacks while Obama stays above the fray - very important quality for a VP which I don't believe Richardson has. He also balances out the Obama ticket to the McCain one in terms of military experience - something voters like.
Wesley Clark, another military guy, is not the best campaigner. I've got a lot of respect on his positions regarding Iran. He established a PAC with the sole platform of keeping the Bush Administration from bombing Iran. This could help to bring Hillary on board since he's a loyal ally of the Clintons.
Just some things to consider. posted 05/10/2008 at 10:53:16
In fact, he came across as light-weight. His responses weren't articulate and he appeared poorly on stage. He didn't address issues in depth and in a convincing manner like say, Joe Biden, had. He couldn't really articulate the illegal-immigration problem in a way that sounded unbiased and addressed all the many factors. It was all "amnesty and open borders" kind of rhetoric. This issue is VERY important to Independents, Republicans, and to many Democrats. Now that we're moving from the Primaries to the General Election, this topic will be a lot more prominent.
To counter McCain's National Security experience: I'd select Biden, Webb, or Clark.
Biden is from Delaware, so, for that I'd pull him off the list.
Jim Webb, from swingstate Virginia, is TOUGH. He could make all the attacks while Obama stays above the fray - very important quality for a VP which I don't believe Richardson has. He also balances out the Obama ticket to the McCain one in terms of military experience - something voters like.
Wesley Clark, another military guy, is not the best campaigner. I've got a lot of respect on his positions regarding Iran. He established a PAC with the sole platform of keeping the Bush Administration from bombing Iran. This could help to bring Hillary on board since he's a loyal ally of the Clintons.
Just some things to consider. posted 05/10/2008 at 10:53:16
Clinton's Open Letter To Obama On MI and FL
The idea of changing the rules in the fourth quarter to help one candidates to desperately gain ground?
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:55:16
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:55:16
Clinton Backer Weinstein Threatens Pelosi Over Revote
The idea of changing the rules in the fourth quarter to help one candidates to desperately gain ground?
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:52:59
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:52:59
Jimmy Carter: Florida, Michigan Shouldn't Count
The idea of changing the rules in the fourth quarter to help one candidates to desperately gain ground?
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:41:23
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a s#@t about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:41:23
The idea of changing the rules in the fourth quarter to help one candidates to desperately gain ground?
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a shit about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:35:06
Point is: when you have a competition, the players need to agree on the rules before the competition begins. Hillary was HAPPY to sign off on denying Michigan votes because the state had violated DNC rules. Every other candidate did the same. Those were the rules to this competition - and Michigan's local politicians were to blame for violating the national party guidelines.
Only when it was impossible for Hillary to win with the states left on the board did she give a shit about Michigan. And someone had to pay for a new election. And since the rules were established upfront and a clear winner has emerged based on those rules, why would anybody, but the loser want to change the rules in the fourth quarter to try and overturn the other candidate's victory?
The irony is: Hillary claims to care so much about getting the votes of the people to count (Michigan and Florida). She can't win a majority of earned delegate votes, popular votes, or states even if she is given Michigan and Florida. So her ONLY way to victory is to get the Superdelegates to overturn the votes of the people and hand her the nomination. Do you see the irony? She wants Michigan votes to count at which point she will desperately try and have all the peoples' votes overturned by the Democratic "Elite". posted 05/09/2008 at 00:35:06
A 'Fighter' in the White House
Excellent post, Catherine! posted 05/08/2008 at 12:34:27
Kucinich, Hinchey: Secretary Rice Should Press Israel for Real Settlement Freeze
Can you post a follow up to show who eventually signs the Kucinich-Hinchey letter. I'd be curious to see which politicians show spine and which ones run for cover. posted 05/07/2008 at 21:45:22
Big Rewards Await Clinton If She Ends Campaign Now
I'd be royally pissed if Obama writes Hillary and Bill (who are worth over $110 million dollars) a check from the hard-earned money that regular citizens contributed to his campaign.
That seems really dishonest, sleazy, and if it originated from the Clinton side, extortion.
Let them pay for their own mismanaged campaign. The way they've behaved they deserve to think long and hard about it all. posted 05/07/2008 at 19:57:48
That seems really dishonest, sleazy, and if it originated from the Clinton side, extortion.
Let them pay for their own mismanaged campaign. The way they've behaved they deserve to think long and hard about it all. posted 05/07/2008 at 19:57:48
North Carolina Superdelegate Endorses Hillary Clinton
Now let's hope NC sacks him for trying to keep her futile campaign going. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:36:23
Heath never completed a single pass. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:27:01
Heath Schuler should be tarred and feathered and run out of the state. Did he get that idea from Rush Limbaugh? Heath strikes me as a Rush Limbaugh listener.
The guy sucked as a quarterback, and now he's screwing over his state, his party, and his country. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:26:07
The guy sucked as a quarterback, and now he's screwing over his state, his party, and his country. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:26:07
George McGovern Switches To Obama, Urges Clinton To Drop Out
She apparently has $11.5 million in debt now. I DO NOT want my contributions to Obama's campaign to bail out that lying Clinton couple. They are centi-millionaires. They should pay for their own mismanagement, not extort it from Obama's supporters. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:39:54
If I were Obama, I'd call Bill Clinton and Terry McCauliff and ask for them to switch their Superdelegate support. That would be so bold it would be hysterically funny! posted 05/07/2008 at 12:31:32
If I were ever to run for an electoral office (which I won't) I would definitely want Terry McCaulliffe. That guy was on MSNBC last night before the results and after seeing him I was convinced that Hillary had blown Obama away.
He was so full of optimistic BS and spin that I started to think "there's no way this guy would be this confident unless he knew from his polling that Hillary won a double header".
And then an hour later we learn Hillary was trounced. That guy is the "spin" king. He could pass a lie detector test, and he'd actually enjoy the process. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:21:09
He was so full of optimistic BS and spin that I started to think "there's no way this guy would be this confident unless he knew from his polling that Hillary won a double header".
And then an hour later we learn Hillary was trounced. That guy is the "spin" king. He could pass a lie detector test, and he'd actually enjoy the process. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:21:09
But remember, this is all of Hillary's making. She keeps changing the rules, the yardstick for measurement. She and Bill are the ones who lie compulsively and distort facts every single day.
Luckily there's time to heal and people will soon forget what a monster Hillary has been, and Hillary supporters will forget that their candidate was called out on her despicable behavior, and you'll hear less and less of it.
Eventually there will be debates between Obama and McCain and McCain will prove what a scary and misinformed candidate he is and people will vote accordingly. Right now everyone is still smarting from such a nasty election.
I was a big Dean supporter and felt the MSM had basically handed the nomination to Kerry in 2004, but I still voted for Kerry in the GE. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:17:42
Luckily there's time to heal and people will soon forget what a monster Hillary has been, and Hillary supporters will forget that their candidate was called out on her despicable behavior, and you'll hear less and less of it.
Eventually there will be debates between Obama and McCain and McCain will prove what a scary and misinformed candidate he is and people will vote accordingly. Right now everyone is still smarting from such a nasty election.
I was a big Dean supporter and felt the MSM had basically handed the nomination to Kerry in 2004, but I still voted for Kerry in the GE. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:17:42
Seriously! Guess it shows why these Superdelegates were supporting her in the first place - Bill. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:08:20
Obama is the best bet for a win against the Republicans. Why the hell do you think Rush has been campaigning for Hillary for the last few months. He WON Indiana for her consider the small margin victory and the exit poll results. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:53:24
There's speculation that to heal the rift between Obama and Clinton, that Obama might consider Rendell or Wesley Clark as VP.
Rendell as VP would make PA an easy win. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:51:05
Rendell as VP would make PA an easy win. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:51:05
Obama's roadmap to victory won't be the traditional red/blue state route.
N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, and many other states are now in play - which would not be the case if Clinton were the nominee.
By the way, don't blame Obama because a news guy reported what Rendell had said about "PA not being ready for a black president". Obama didn't touch that statement with a ten foot poll, as the Clintons were hoping he might. They and their surrogates were trying desperately to get Obama to cry "racism" so they could define him as the "black candidate".
He and his campaign avoided Rendell's statement. By the way there's been speculation that Rendell might be a VP consideration which would put PA in play.
Clinton was too flawed. Nearly 70% of the electorate believed she was dishonest and would say anything to get elected. The cornerstone of her entire campaign "experience" was proven to be a complete lie. Rush campaigned for Hillary for a very real reason: they wanted to face her. They could get away with negative attack after negative attack with her, because she's already considered the "dirty" campaigner.
Anyway, I'm sure the Clintonites are upset now, but a few months from now when you hear McCain's positions and the wounds have healed, I hope you consider giving Obama a fair shake. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:47:45
N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, and many other states are now in play - which would not be the case if Clinton were the nominee.
By the way, don't blame Obama because a news guy reported what Rendell had said about "PA not being ready for a black president". Obama didn't touch that statement with a ten foot poll, as the Clintons were hoping he might. They and their surrogates were trying desperately to get Obama to cry "racism" so they could define him as the "black candidate".
He and his campaign avoided Rendell's statement. By the way there's been speculation that Rendell might be a VP consideration which would put PA in play.
Clinton was too flawed. Nearly 70% of the electorate believed she was dishonest and would say anything to get elected. The cornerstone of her entire campaign "experience" was proven to be a complete lie. Rush campaigned for Hillary for a very real reason: they wanted to face her. They could get away with negative attack after negative attack with her, because she's already considered the "dirty" campaigner.
Anyway, I'm sure the Clintonites are upset now, but a few months from now when you hear McCain's positions and the wounds have healed, I hope you consider giving Obama a fair shake. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:47:45
Obama Victorious, Clinton On The Ropes
>> "halting the momentum behind her bid for the nomination just when she had begun to regain credibility."
"Regain her credibility"? Are you kidding? After all her blatant and compulsive lying she began to "regain her credibiilty"?
Close to 70% of Democrats believe she is not honest and will say anything to get elected. What poll were you referring to? posted 05/07/2008 at 10:25:36
"Regain her credibility"? Are you kidding? After all her blatant and compulsive lying she began to "regain her credibiilty"?
Close to 70% of Democrats believe she is not honest and will say anything to get elected. What poll were you referring to? posted 05/07/2008 at 10:25:36
At Speech, Clinton Reminded That She Was From Scranton Two Weeks Ago
Good for that supporter. Her own fans need to call her out on this constant lying she's resorted to at every stump speech, at every interview, at every townhall, ...
The only thing that gets compulsive liars to stop is to call them out over and over again, so to have her own supporter at her own "victory" speech call her out is refreshing. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:06:18
The only thing that gets compulsive liars to stop is to call them out over and over again, so to have her own supporter at her own "victory" speech call her out is refreshing. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:06:18
Study: Obama-Backed Illinois Gas Tax Holiday Actually Worked
Obviously George W. Bush would NEVER sign a bill that imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies. OBVIOUSLY!!
So isn't this entirely rhetorical? Undoable?
Hasn't Hillary already stated she would use the tax revenues from the oil industry's windfall profits to fund her green energy initiaitves? So I guess she believes George W. Bush will do an about face and tax the oil companies, and then she'll get to spend the money twice - to fund her own green initiatives and then make the money appear again to cut gas prices for the summer.
Give me a break. Why even debate something when you know full well that it won't happen - not with this President? posted 05/06/2008 at 13:29:22
So isn't this entirely rhetorical? Undoable?
Hasn't Hillary already stated she would use the tax revenues from the oil industry's windfall profits to fund her green energy initiaitves? So I guess she believes George W. Bush will do an about face and tax the oil companies, and then she'll get to spend the money twice - to fund her own green initiatives and then make the money appear again to cut gas prices for the summer.
Give me a break. Why even debate something when you know full well that it won't happen - not with this President? posted 05/06/2008 at 13:29:22
Obamania Down the Drain
>> "Our explanation rests on the new style of political coverage we have called Reality Gameshow Journalism, a style that sees the presidential campaign as an elimination contest between larger-than-life personalities, that focuses on the character rather than the ideology of each, that is interested in socio-psychological factors more than issues, that believes that character is most clearly revealed when a candidate is subjected to the ordeal of near elimination."
If it were really focused on the CHARACTER rather than the ideology, then wouldn't Bill's and Hillary's continuous lies be more of a legitimate story?
Rev. Wright is like 6 degrees of separation. Farrakhan says something biggoted, and then Reverend Wright supports F's statements, so since Obama knows and sat occasionally in the church of Wright, then he must agree with everything Farrakhan says. It's a media hyped non-story.
But when Clinton lies about all of her experience, and lies about this, and distorts that, then that directly reflects everything about her character. And yet Bosnia, Northern Ireland, SCHIP, and every other lie she gave was in the media for only a single week.
This Rev. Wright story was in the media for over a month and a half before Wright even reappeared in front of the Press Club to defend himself and throw Obama under the bus. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:20:38
If it were really focused on the CHARACTER rather than the ideology, then wouldn't Bill's and Hillary's continuous lies be more of a legitimate story?
Rev. Wright is like 6 degrees of separation. Farrakhan says something biggoted, and then Reverend Wright supports F's statements, so since Obama knows and sat occasionally in the church of Wright, then he must agree with everything Farrakhan says. It's a media hyped non-story.
But when Clinton lies about all of her experience, and lies about this, and distorts that, then that directly reflects everything about her character. And yet Bosnia, Northern Ireland, SCHIP, and every other lie she gave was in the media for only a single week.
This Rev. Wright story was in the media for over a month and a half before Wright even reappeared in front of the Press Club to defend himself and throw Obama under the bus. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:20:38
On an Obama/Clinton Ticket: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
I think it's because most of us aren't "politicians" by trade. We don't appreciate when politicians defy their own principles as a means to pander to this or that group.
Some of us are so stunned by Hillary's and Bill's bad behavior, we are sort of in shock about it. When we see their followers turn a blind eye to their candidates' behavior, and continue to support these compulsive liars, then it becomes very clear that these people don't hold the same principles and ethics that we do and in some ways resemble everything wrong with our country.
If you see people lying, cheating, dividing people along racial and gender lines, and doing this day in and day out - you begin to detest them. The people who are following them like sheep and allowing their behavior to continue sort of put themselves in front of the target.
It's like watching George W. Bush mislead us into war, out a CIA operative and then watch all these uneducated religious freaks put him back in the white house because they fear "gay marriage". Your anger sort of gets diverted from George W. to the people who keep him where he is. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:42:54
Some of us are so stunned by Hillary's and Bill's bad behavior, we are sort of in shock about it. When we see their followers turn a blind eye to their candidates' behavior, and continue to support these compulsive liars, then it becomes very clear that these people don't hold the same principles and ethics that we do and in some ways resemble everything wrong with our country.
If you see people lying, cheating, dividing people along racial and gender lines, and doing this day in and day out - you begin to detest them. The people who are following them like sheep and allowing their behavior to continue sort of put themselves in front of the target.
It's like watching George W. Bush mislead us into war, out a CIA operative and then watch all these uneducated religious freaks put him back in the white house because they fear "gay marriage". Your anger sort of gets diverted from George W. to the people who keep him where he is. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:42:54
Excellent Post!
If he's worried about the white women vote, he could get Elizabeth Edwards, or some other honest woman to be his VP selection.
If he's worried about the white uneducated working class vote he could get Ed Rendell of PA or Jim Webb of VA.
Hillary doesn't have a LOCK on these constituencies. Considering Hillary's behavior I find it difficult that these groups really LOVE Hillary. I think they're just voting along gender and racial lines, and so he could easily find another VP who would help him on that front - doesn't need to be the polarizing and dishonest Hillary Clinton. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:31:00
If he's worried about the white women vote, he could get Elizabeth Edwards, or some other honest woman to be his VP selection.
If he's worried about the white uneducated working class vote he could get Ed Rendell of PA or Jim Webb of VA.
Hillary doesn't have a LOCK on these constituencies. Considering Hillary's behavior I find it difficult that these groups really LOVE Hillary. I think they're just voting along gender and racial lines, and so he could easily find another VP who would help him on that front - doesn't need to be the polarizing and dishonest Hillary Clinton. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:31:00
Clinton "Elite" Bashing A Shift For Campaign That Regularly Celebrates Experts
Hillary obviously feels her supporters are the uneducated types you find drooling over FoxNews and Rush Libmaugh. This kind of language only resonates with that type. Those who put faith over fact, hot button issues and labels over logic and educated reason.
This bunch has already given us George W. Bush. It's no wonder Hillary (with no credibility left) panders to this electorate desperately. When you can't win the argument with facts, just label those who are educated and with facts as "elitists". posted 05/06/2008 at 13:37:03
This bunch has already given us George W. Bush. It's no wonder Hillary (with no credibility left) panders to this electorate desperately. When you can't win the argument with facts, just label those who are educated and with facts as "elitists". posted 05/06/2008 at 13:37:03
Clinton Gas Tax Holiday: Hillary Attacks Economists
Triangulating, triangulating, triangulating!
Notice how she can't even address his questions about how the oil companies in the past when this was implemented kept didn't pass the tax cut savings along to the consumer, but kept them for themselves.
Obama brought up the point on Tim Russert that she's already spent the windfall tax profits of the oil companies in her plans for "green initiatives" so she's in effect verbally suggesting she could spend that money twice.
This is the kind of political rhetoric that has gotten this country in so much trouble in the first place: putting "band aids" on substantive cancerous problems ONLY for scoring quick political points while evading the real problems. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:24:16
Notice how she can't even address his questions about how the oil companies in the past when this was implemented kept didn't pass the tax cut savings along to the consumer, but kept them for themselves.
Obama brought up the point on Tim Russert that she's already spent the windfall tax profits of the oil companies in her plans for "green initiatives" so she's in effect verbally suggesting she could spend that money twice.
This is the kind of political rhetoric that has gotten this country in so much trouble in the first place: putting "band aids" on substantive cancerous problems ONLY for scoring quick political points while evading the real problems. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:24:16
Israelis Manhandling US General and Washington is Silent
Not to mention they refused to offer security to former American President Carter to prevent assassination while he was visiting Israel.
You're either bowing down to Likud or you may as well be dead as far as they're concerned. posted 05/04/2008 at 16:36:14
You're either bowing down to Likud or you may as well be dead as far as they're concerned. posted 05/04/2008 at 16:36:14
My Conversation with Arianna Huffington
I always liked Charlie Rose until this interview. What a freakin idiot! posted 05/03/2008 at 01:26:39
Christie Todd Whitman Not Liable For Telling Residents That World Trade Center Air Was Safe To Breathe, Judge Rules
"holding the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency liable would set a dangerous precedent in future disasters because public officials would fear making public statements."
- and what's wrong with that? If they don't know whether the air is safe, then perhaps they should keep their mouths shut. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:29:04
- and what's wrong with that? If they don't know whether the air is safe, then perhaps they should keep their mouths shut. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:29:04
On Passover: Thank You, Jimmy Carter
Excellent post, Jonathan!
In anything was learned from Northern Ireland and South Africa it is that the two sides MUST speak with each other if they are to achieve peace. Talking to ONLY doves on the Palestinian side won't give Israel the peace that they want. They need to know that the militant groups are on board as well.
If the British and the Protestants had refused to speak with Sinn Fein they NEVER would have achieved a real and lasting peace. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:22:04
In anything was learned from Northern Ireland and South Africa it is that the two sides MUST speak with each other if they are to achieve peace. Talking to ONLY doves on the Palestinian side won't give Israel the peace that they want. They need to know that the militant groups are on board as well.
If the British and the Protestants had refused to speak with Sinn Fein they NEVER would have achieved a real and lasting peace. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:22:04
ABC Hosts Heckled After Debate: "The Crowd Is Turning On Me"
First they throw all these "old News" gotcha questions as Obama and then as soon as he starts answering them, they interrupt him with extensions of the questions.
It was a complete "Hit Job" on Obama by the establishment to try desperately in the 11th Hour to determine the outcome of this primary. posted 04/17/2008 at 10:40:24
It was a complete "Hit Job" on Obama by the establishment to try desperately in the 11th Hour to determine the outcome of this primary. posted 04/17/2008 at 10:40:24
Rep. Geoff Davis On Obama: "That Boy" Could Not Be Commander-In-Chief
What a RACIST!! I wish MoveOn.org would make unseating this redneck Kentucky Congressman a priority for the next election. posted 04/14/2008 at 21:13:41
Bill Maher's New Rule About Catholicism "The Cult" And The Pope
Bill is 100% correct. The Priest, Bishops, Pope, and anyone else who aided and abetted the pedophile priests should be in prison. And the Catholic Church should have been prosecuted under the RICO laws. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:14:50
Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall
yep. Kyle-Lieberman - the legislation that AIPAC lobbied for. posted 04/13/2008 at 22:46:46
You're exactly right, TimN. You may not like Buchanan for this or that reason, but he has been against the neo-cons - the ones who mislead us into war against Iraq and the ones who are trying to mislead us into war against Iran from day one. posted 04/13/2008 at 22:45:38
Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says
By the way, I meant to say great post. I agree! posted 04/13/2008 at 01:02:29
We aren't going to occupy Iran and take over their oil fields. They have twice the population of Iraq and our troops are already so overwhelmed with Iraq. We will be bombing them ONLY. That doesn't yield us oil.
We are targeting Israel's enemies instead of our own. If you look at the biographical makeup of the neo-cons who misled us into battle against Iraq they are all fanatical zionist zealots: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, etc.. They spent their entire lives working for Israeli Security Think Tanks.
Notice how Al Qaeda isn't a threat to the U.S., but Iran is, and Iran is the country Israel has been SCREAMING for us to bomb for the last 2 years. Netanyahu has had publicity tours in this country where he's tried to persuade Americans that Iran is a threat to us and we should bomb them.
It is so obvious, but Americans will continue to look away until our country is completely bankrupted pariah in this world.
WAKE UP!!! Enough Wars!!!!
AIPAC needs to be dismantled and laws need to be written that keeps any other country from having this kind of influence over our government. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:30:51
We are targeting Israel's enemies instead of our own. If you look at the biographical makeup of the neo-cons who misled us into battle against Iraq they are all fanatical zionist zealots: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, etc.. They spent their entire lives working for Israeli Security Think Tanks.
Notice how Al Qaeda isn't a threat to the U.S., but Iran is, and Iran is the country Israel has been SCREAMING for us to bomb for the last 2 years. Netanyahu has had publicity tours in this country where he's tried to persuade Americans that Iran is a threat to us and we should bomb them.
It is so obvious, but Americans will continue to look away until our country is completely bankrupted pariah in this world.
WAKE UP!!! Enough Wars!!!!
AIPAC needs to be dismantled and laws need to be written that keeps any other country from having this kind of influence over our government. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:30:51
So Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. on 9-11.
The neo-cons used the opportunity to bomb Iraq (who had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda).
Now the neo-cons are stating that Iran is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Next the neo-cons will state that Syria is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Then the neo-cons will state that Hezbolla is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Then the neo-cons will state that Hamas is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Notice the pattern - we're fighting all Israel's enemies instead of fighting our own. Wonder why? posted 04/12/2008 at 11:30:10
The neo-cons used the opportunity to bomb Iraq (who had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda).
Now the neo-cons are stating that Iran is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Next the neo-cons will state that Syria is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Then the neo-cons will state that Hezbolla is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Then the neo-cons will state that Hamas is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda.
Notice the pattern - we're fighting all Israel's enemies instead of fighting our own. Wonder why? posted 04/12/2008 at 11:30:10
Rice Criticizes Carter Over Hamas Plans
Imagine Condoleezza Rice, part of the team that destroyed America's standing in the world, telling Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter how to go about conducting diplomacy!
This administration should be run out of town immediately. What a mess they've created! posted 04/12/2008 at 11:38:04
This administration should be run out of town immediately. What a mess they've created! posted 04/12/2008 at 11:38:04
Bill Clinton Raises Bosnia, Gets Several Facts Wrong
"Got Facts Wrong"?
- Boy, that's a nice way to say he blatantly lied and was caught, yet again for it. posted 04/12/2008 at 17:45:38
- Boy, that's a nice way to say he blatantly lied and was caught, yet again for it. posted 04/12/2008 at 17:45:38
Obama Triangulates and Won't Go Where Other Great Americans Will on Hamas
Unlike Hillary who dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, and brought peace to Northern Ireland? posted 04/12/2008 at 17:47:43
"All the experts have said his approach of talking to everyone is dangerous"
- ALL of the experts? What experts? John McCain? Wolfowitz? Feith? Perle? Rumsfeld? George W.?
Your, so called, experts have destroyed this country and its credibility in the world. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:57:48
- ALL of the experts? What experts? John McCain? Wolfowitz? Feith? Perle? Rumsfeld? George W.?
Your, so called, experts have destroyed this country and its credibility in the world. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:57:48
Well, if you're right, and Obama is just gonna beat the Israel Lobby at their own game, then all the power to him. I hope you're right about this and he's not just bending over like all the other politicians. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:54:10
Hamas watched Fatah enter into the Oslo peace agreement with Israel to then watch Israel double the number of illegal "Jewish ONLY" settlements in the 'West Bank and move hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants there, while continuing to bulldoze Palestinian town, farms, and homes. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have become homeless due to this since Oslo.
I'd imagine that Hamas doesn't believe that Israel truly recognizes the Palestinians' "right to exist", that it is only saying it while they quietly steal all of their land. Hamas has stated that they would accept any and honor any peace agreement that the Palestinian majority wanted. posted 04/11/2008 at 12:06:12
I'd imagine that Hamas doesn't believe that Israel truly recognizes the Palestinians' "right to exist", that it is only saying it while they quietly steal all of their land. Hamas has stated that they would accept any and honor any peace agreement that the Palestinian majority wanted. posted 04/11/2008 at 12:06:12
Excellent Post!! I am a big fan of Obama (plan on voting for him) and he DOES triangulate on this issue.
Hamas is the rightful elected majority in the Palestinian government. They are a political party - not just a militant group seeking freedom from Israel occupation and ethnic cleansing. International monitors oversaw the Palestinian elections and Hamas won fair and square.
Obama's underlying principle for how he would conduct international diplomacy is that we must talk to people with whom we disagree - that is the MOST IMPORTANT fundamental principle that makes him a change from the past.
So when the Israel Lobby pressures him and he complies and makes Hamas an exception he violates his own core principle. Fatah used to be designated as a "terrorist group" and Arafat was labeled a "terrorist". So was Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
Obama is too smart not to know this. TO me it is proof that our foreign policy is completely controlled by the most extreme elements of Israeli (Zionist) ideology. Either our politicians accept these extreme likudnik policies (even if it runs counter to your entire Diplomatic initiative, or runs counter to the best interests of your own country) or you fear for your political future in the United States of America.
It's really scary. posted 04/11/2008 at 11:47:41
Hamas is the rightful elected majority in the Palestinian government. They are a political party - not just a militant group seeking freedom from Israel occupation and ethnic cleansing. International monitors oversaw the Palestinian elections and Hamas won fair and square.
Obama's underlying principle for how he would conduct international diplomacy is that we must talk to people with whom we disagree - that is the MOST IMPORTANT fundamental principle that makes him a change from the past.
So when the Israel Lobby pressures him and he complies and makes Hamas an exception he violates his own core principle. Fatah used to be designated as a "terrorist group" and Arafat was labeled a "terrorist". So was Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
Obama is too smart not to know this. TO me it is proof that our foreign policy is completely controlled by the most extreme elements of Israeli (Zionist) ideology. Either our politicians accept these extreme likudnik policies (even if it runs counter to your entire Diplomatic initiative, or runs counter to the best interests of your own country) or you fear for your political future in the United States of America.
It's really scary. posted 04/11/2008 at 11:47:41
Jimmy Carter's Planned Hamas Meeting Criticized By Bush Administration
Way to go Carter!! While the neo-cons try to mislead us into a war with Iran, Carter will hopefully put a peace proposal together in the background and save us from more wasted American lives and trillions more in wasted American treasures. posted 04/10/2008 at 22:59:13
Jewish Leader Calls John Hagee An "Extremist"
Rabbi Eric Yoffie is a Saint. He is both admirable and brave to stand up against the Zionist Zealots who harm both the US and Israel. posted 04/05/2008 at 02:11:15
Smears and Tears: How Obama's National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype
It's just shocking to see someone like Joe Wilson, whom I had respect for, anchor himself to a lying, distorting sociopath and literally let her drive his own reputation off a cliff.
What a shame. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:05:45
What a shame. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:05:45
Rove Already Answered the GOP's Question of Who's the Weaker Democrat
This guy, Earl, is lost in Hillaryland. He must think we've all been in hibernation since December.
There is some serious Kool-Aid being served to those poor Hillary sympathisers. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:29:16
There is some serious Kool-Aid being served to those poor Hillary sympathisers. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:29:16
Two Years of "The Israel Lobby," Part 2
I disagree. They provided over 150 pages of sources (mostly Israeli sources) knowing that they'd be questioned on every single thing they wrote.
As a result of their thoroughness and backing up each statement with a note all their critics could do was to call them "anti-semites" and make general criticisms of them and their intentions. No one I know has debunked any of the details in their book. Dershowitz paper was laughable. He did NOTHING to challenge a single issue they raised. posted 03/29/2008 at 16:10:58
As a result of their thoroughness and backing up each statement with a note all their critics could do was to call them "anti-semites" and make general criticisms of them and their intentions. No one I know has debunked any of the details in their book. Dershowitz paper was laughable. He did NOTHING to challenge a single issue they raised. posted 03/29/2008 at 16:10:58
Time For A Democratic Peacemaker: Senator George Mitchell
Funny you'd say the complete opposite at what's happening. Obama has a "ground up" campaign and Clinton a "top down" campaign. Obama gets all his money in $20-$50 online donations, while Hillary gets hers from Lobbyists, PACs, and special interest groups.
Obama OBVIOUSLY represents the voice of the people both in terms of financial supports as well as in his "change" message, while Clinton must pander to the least educated as she represents the monied special interest groups that oppose change.
So your "regular folks" rhetoric is rather empty. She has no choice, but to pander to those who are misinformed enough to believe all her lies as she carries out the agenda for monied special interest groups. posted 03/25/2008 at 12:48:55
Obama OBVIOUSLY represents the voice of the people both in terms of financial supports as well as in his "change" message, while Clinton must pander to the least educated as she represents the monied special interest groups that oppose change.
So your "regular folks" rhetoric is rather empty. She has no choice, but to pander to those who are misinformed enough to believe all her lies as she carries out the agenda for monied special interest groups. posted 03/25/2008 at 12:48:55
What Do We Say When Our Daughters Say: "I'm Fat!"
Perhaps get a family membership at the local nuatilus and get her into a routine of exercising. It's better they get addicted to exercising instead of starving themselves. posted 03/26/2008 at 22:26:30
Two Years of "The Israel Lobby," Part 1
It's not a hatred of Jews. It's about recognizing that neo-cons are Zionist Zealots. If you don't believe me then do some research on all the architects of the Iraq War. Check out the papers they wrote in the 1990s. They've devoted most of their lives to Israel's national security. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:16:28
Excellent beginning to an enlightening subject. I read Mearsheimer and Walt's book and can attest that it is extremely well documented. There's over 150 pages of notes and most of their sources are from Israel. Those who have slandered them have not disproven any of their well sourced facts. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:14:38
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn't Hillary Clinton gracefully concede...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
NEW UPDATE BELOW As violence in Iraq continues -- clashes today left 11 dead and 19 injured -- President...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself,...
