Jacksonian

Why would anyone believe anything John McCain says on this or any topic?

He has flip-flopped on so many issues that if he chose Mitt Romney as his running mate, it would mark the first time identical twins had run on the same ticket for the nation's top offices. posted 05/15/2008 at 15:29:12

Your assertion that because Democrats have had only two Presidents in 40 years means their message doesn't resonate is both weak and absurd and ignores the lies, distortions, and outright thefts committed by Republican dirty tricksters.

There actaully have been three Democratic Presidents during this time period: Don't forget President Gore, who along with President Carter, is one of only two living U.S. Presidents to have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

With typical Republican obsfucation, you further assert that damage to America's reputation is somehow a result of Democratic actions. Oh, that's right: It was a Democrat who claimed Saddam was behind 911; it was a Democrat who distorted the intelligence about WMD; it was a Democrat who held up a vial of, what, anthrax (?), at the United Nations; it was a Democrat who authorized torture and who threw out Habeas Corpus.

Yep-- that Democratic brand name has sure been tarnished. If you don't believe me, just ask the voters of Mississippi's First Congressional District.

Good luck with that GOP logo this or any fall.

This year will mark the occasion when both the polar bear and the elephant made the endangered species list,

KEITH'S COMMENT WAS FANTASTIC! posted 05/15/2008 at 15:08:14

Two things jumped out at me as I watched Mrs. Bush today:

First-- Did she, as the wife of the guy who stole the 200o election, think there might be a tad bit of irony in her lamentation that the rightful winner of the Myanmar election was not in power either?

Second-- Where was a precedent-setting news conference from the First Lady after Hurricane Katrina? My heart goes out to the cyclone victims, but doesn't charity begin at home?

As for whether she should have discussed her daughter's upcoming wedding: Big deal. She didn't bring it up; a reporter did. And the wedding of the daughter of a sitting President is at least as interesting as what typically passes for entertainment news and at least has some (not much) historical significance.


]A posted 05/05/2008 at 21:35:26

Most of your points are irrelevant and either the product of weak analysis or Republican spin. Your asertion that Obama, after 21 debates, is afraid to debate Hillary is asinine.

You don't really want your candidate to get into a character debate with Obama. Her list of questionable deeds/statements/policy positions/surrogates would go on for miles and would span three decades. (Hmm...35 years maybe?)

Her campaign, which faltered because of arrogance, has revealed her true colors: she is petty, pandering, pathetic, pitiful, and a poor sport.

The only thing her going "nuclear" would produce is a nuclear winter for her candidacy and for the Democratic party. posted 05/04/2008 at 21:12:14

Hillary has made a mess of the nomination process. She is certainly capable of making a mess of the convention. If this story is accurate, it looks as if the convention is where this is headed. If she's successful, say hello to President McCain. posted 05/04/2008 at 20:58:23

maryskin123...It sounds good to me! posted 05/04/2008 at 20:55:51

Why is this racist diatribe a "Huffpost Pick?" posted 05/02/2008 at 00:21:37

Good for Marty Parrish. I've been waiting for SOMEONE to ask this question. I thought maybe a REPORTER would bring it up.

Silly me.

McCain's quick deflection of the question suggests he and his staff were expecting it and probably had been since "The Real McCain's" publication.

I wonder if the audience members who cheered McCain on for scolding the profanity of the question see the irony of their response: If it's unsuitable language for a public forum, wasn't it unsuitable when McCain, in a smaller public forum, directed the word at his wife?

And as he hasn't denied it, but only belittled the questioner, I'm inclined to believe it's true.

Which begs the question-- How does he speak to his wife in PRIVATE? posted 05/01/2008 at 20:45:01

Finally someone in the Obama campaign calls the broadcast media on the carpet for its ridiculous saturation coverage of a non-issue!

I'd like to see the candidate himself take this a step further the next time the television punditocracy sidetracks the Presidential debate with the Wright nonsense.

Besides observing, as Kerry, did, that it's time for the media "to let go of this," Obama should say: Let's see some coverage of the Pentagon's propaganda project in the run-up to the Iraq war and how the broadcast media willingly and happily complied. Why don't you do some stories on THAT.

The media hypocrisy is unbelievable. Why Obama's former pastor, whose views he has rejected and denounced, is a greater issue than the major networks' and cable news organizations' abysmal failure to do their jobs escapes me.

Quite probably the actions of the Pentagon were illegal (see CommonDreams); quite probably, the complicit broadcasters failed to meet FCC standards for news and public affairs programming.

How about a movement to revoke their broadcasting licenses. Would THAT get their attention?

Despite this, ten days after the New York Times broke the propaganda story, the airwaves have remained deafeningly silent on the topic.

It's time to turn the tables on the media. Indeed they have a lot more to explain about their propaganda mills than Obama does about Jeremiah Wright. posted 04/30/2008 at 18:03:31

Obviously today's professional dumpster diver was a worm in a previous life-- nature's recycling champions!
:o) posted 04/29/2008 at 18:06:36

What do you expect from a "media critic" who takes money from a television network? He crossed the line so long ago, it's just a faint memory on the ethical highway. You're correct, as usual, Arianna, in your original assessment and in your rebuttal. posted 04/25/2008 at 18:19:14

Very well stated, George. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:13:34

What on earth makes you think Hillary would settle for being a one-term President? This woman with the GALL to remain in a race she cannot win by honest means but only with the aiding and abetting of superdelegates?

That's just a silly notion, same as it's a silly to think McCain would seek only one term. Politicians at their very core are ego driven.

Hillary definitely would insist upon two terms. That gives her and Bill a full eight years to groom Chelsea so that the dynasty lives on. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:04:24

Well said, bobdob. posted 04/25/2008 at 02:55:37

You are wrong, Liberaland.

Even if your assertion is true that Clinton is more electable than Obama, if she maneuvers her way to the nomination through the superdelegates, the Presidency will belong to McCain. Clinton's numbers never go much above 48 in the general-election matchup. Without the African-American vote, which she would surely lose by stealing the nomination, she can't reach even 48 percent.

If Hillary steals, McCain wins. If Hillary continues to slime Obama, McCain wins.

However the Presidential race turns out, I firmly believe the Democrats will make significant gains in the Congressional races, rendering a McCain presidency impotent.

I could live with that. But I could never live with casting a ballot for the power-hungry, narcissistic, win-at-any-cost, race-baiting, pandering, and fundamentally dishonest Hillary Clinton.

(I'm 51, female, white, and a lifelong Democrat. If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for Ralph Nader. If Obama is the nominee, he gets my vote. If Obama is the President, he should appoint Nader as Attorney General. He'd be a fantastic choice to delve into the abuses of the Bush Administration.) posted 04/25/2008 at 02:53:22

LMAO posted 04/25/2008 at 02:28:46

Here is the reality of the Democratic Presidential race:

When the votes are counted in Puerto Rico, Obama will lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won-- even if you include Florida & Michigan;

The super delegates will respect the will of the voters, and enough of them will immediately declare for Obama to ensure he hits the magic nomination number;

Notwithstanding this liklihood, Hillary Clinton will not drop out of the race but will fight on to the convention;

The mainstream media will continue to sputter, to muse, to pontificate, to pounce, to predict, to be wrong, and to reveal its woeful inadequacies;

The 2008 election will be historical-- historical because it will explode the myth of a fair, balanced, and competent press. posted 04/25/2008 at 00:54:33

In the second-to-the-last paragraph, you write Clinton criticized (Obama's) "marks," saying, they were "all to reminiscent" of past Democratic failures.

"Too" bad no one edited your "remarks."
:o) posted 04/14/2008 at 16:37:23

You're probably correct, apcalc. A lot of dull info in a passport file.

But if this WAS a Clintonian spy job, maybe one piece of information the snoops gleaned concerned Obama's trip to Kenya. Wouldn't THAT be in a passport file?

How interesting that subsequent to the breach, a photo of Obama donning the native garb of Kenya ends up on the Drudge Report. And Drudge says the photo came from the Clinton campaign.

Is it a big leap to believe that Clinton operatives used the info on the Kenya trip as a jumping-off point to see what facts-- or photos-- of the event might be available somewhere?

Just a thought... posted 03/21/2008 at 01:20:41

I remember a group of White House Plumbers who were QUITE sinister. Maybe you should choose a different analogy.
:o) posted 03/21/2008 at 01:06:06

This story reminds me of the FBI's illegal eavesdropping of Martin Luther King during the 1960s. What a sad state of affairs it is that 40 years later another African American leader is the victim of unauthorized snooping.

I have not seen or heard anything connecting the Clinton campaign to this scandal, but if there is a connection SHE MUST GO. If there is a connection, the super delegates who have endorsed her should withdraw their support, form an alliance with the other super delegates, and announce they are backing Obama.

And in any event, Congress should investigate.

posted 03/20/2008 at 23:04:21