May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
KPinSEA
Recent comments by this user
Six Reasons Why Obama and Clinton Would Each Say "Yes" to VP
Obama Camp Faces Major Obstacles In Plan To Help Clinton Pay Off Debt
I'll be happy to pay Mark Penn twenty bucks .... to mow my lawn. posted 05/09/2008 at 02:16:53
Another "The Hillary I Know"
Senator Clinton's continued pursuit of the nomination does not need to be damaging to the party if she ultimately is not the nominee ... so long as she does not base her campaigning on the assertion that only she is (a) electable or (b) genuinely competent to act as chief executive.
Oh yes, when pressed with a direct question, Senator Clinton says "Oh sure Obama is qualified and oh sure I'll work to get him elected ...." But day after day the Mark Penn element of her campaign still seeks to distinguish her from Senator Obama not on policy, but on competency. She has mistakenly listened to bad advice in this regard time and time again, and for this reason it is hard to maintain confidence that her continued pursuit of the nomination will not be bad for the party and the chances of electing its nominee.
By all means stay the course and finish your campaign (on your own dime) Senator Clinton, but only if you can say no to the advisers who think the nomination should be yours *at any cost*. I'd like to have confidence that such a change will occur, but the last few months have not been confidence builders in this regard. posted 05/09/2008 at 11:20:08
Oh yes, when pressed with a direct question, Senator Clinton says "Oh sure Obama is qualified and oh sure I'll work to get him elected ...." But day after day the Mark Penn element of her campaign still seeks to distinguish her from Senator Obama not on policy, but on competency. She has mistakenly listened to bad advice in this regard time and time again, and for this reason it is hard to maintain confidence that her continued pursuit of the nomination will not be bad for the party and the chances of electing its nominee.
By all means stay the course and finish your campaign (on your own dime) Senator Clinton, but only if you can say no to the advisers who think the nomination should be yours *at any cost*. I'd like to have confidence that such a change will occur, but the last few months have not been confidence builders in this regard. posted 05/09/2008 at 11:20:08
Clinton lends her struggling campaign $6.4 million
Isn't this kind of like Germany telling England in '45 "Hey we'll surrender but only if you pay for the costs we incurred developing the V-2!" posted 05/07/2008 at 17:52:00
Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks
I would spend more time criticizing Islam for its inconsistencies and failings, but the inconsistencies and failings of my own government are getting so many people killed that I've got to prioritize. posted 05/05/2008 at 11:21:32
Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option
It does seem to be "old politics" at its worst, a regrettable choice that it was published without more meat on the bone. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:01:04
Although Senator Clinton has taken a lot of bad advice in this campaign, this one seems like a real reach. Surely she knows that should she win the battle (nomination) this way, it would ensure losing the war (general election). posted 05/04/2008 at 16:46:51
"her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision ..."
You know, that's as close as this entire piece comes to actually claiming that this scenario is anything more than the political equivalent of Fantasy Football. Not one quote from a Clinton source, not even an "unnamed" source.
Hard to get worked up about this classic example of "What if?" posted 05/04/2008 at 16:38:54
You know, that's as close as this entire piece comes to actually claiming that this scenario is anything more than the political equivalent of Fantasy Football. Not one quote from a Clinton source, not even an "unnamed" source.
Hard to get worked up about this classic example of "What if?" posted 05/04/2008 at 16:38:54
Dead Kentucky Derby Filly the Elephant in the Room
Had the TV tuned to the race for about 30 minutes prior to race time with the sound muted and music on ... switched to the race sound about a minute before the race began, listened to the race, right back to music afterward.
Alas, there are very few sporting events where I can endure the insipid "commentary" any more. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:29:30
Alas, there are very few sporting events where I can endure the insipid "commentary" any more. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:29:30
Carville: If Hillary Gave Obama "One Of Her Cojones, They'd Both Have Two"
America's "Baghdad Bob", James Carville.
Okay, that's a silly comparison, I know .... Carville isn't nearly as credible as Baghdad Bob these days. posted 05/04/2008 at 19:31:55
Okay, that's a silly comparison, I know .... Carville isn't nearly as credible as Baghdad Bob these days. posted 05/04/2008 at 19:31:55
Frances Townsend Joins CNN: Latest White House Official To Spin With The Media
This week's Boston Legal had the best take on CNN's "Best Political Team" yet, man that had me cracking up. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:05:41
Clinton Defends 'Obliterate Iran' Comment, Obama Calls It Bush-Style 'Cowboy Diplomacy'
Obama isn't even proposing something new there, we *are* making unilateral strikes on camps in Pakistan. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:53:10
Don't you know? It's because those Iranian leaders are craaaaaaaaazy!
So crazy they don't allow women to drive or vote? No, that's our buddies at the House of Saud.
So crazy they travel halfway around the world to lay waste to a country that never attacked them or had plans to? No ... that's us.
Crazy enough to think that in a region where pretty much all their potential adversaries have The Bomb, they need it just to be sure they aren't left without a chair if the music stops? Yep, that kind of crazy. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:34:16
So crazy they don't allow women to drive or vote? No, that's our buddies at the House of Saud.
So crazy they travel halfway around the world to lay waste to a country that never attacked them or had plans to? No ... that's us.
Crazy enough to think that in a region where pretty much all their potential adversaries have The Bomb, they need it just to be sure they aren't left without a chair if the music stops? Yep, that kind of crazy. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:34:16
Mostly I object to someone holding themselves out as the "experienced" candidate but ignoring the fact that Iran is being deterred just fine by Israel's nuclear arsenal, and that by the time she got her 3 a.m. phone call, there wouldn't be any Iranian cities left for the U.S. to obliterate.
Also would have been nice if she'd just laughed at the absurdity of the question, since almost no one thinks Iran will have a weapon they can deliver to Israel by missile before *Chelsea* Clinton runs for President. posted 05/04/2008 at 18:20:44
Also would have been nice if she'd just laughed at the absurdity of the question, since almost no one thinks Iran will have a weapon they can deliver to Israel by missile before *Chelsea* Clinton runs for President. posted 05/04/2008 at 18:20:44
Continues to be the most disappointing source of comments from Senator Clinton, and so clearly disingenuous.
First ... come on, Senator, you are far too experienced politically to think that when foreigners threaten a nation, you empower the *liberals*!!! Is that how it worked in America after 9/11? Where did it EVER work that way? To claim that you have "experts" that tell you it's not happening when we rattle the saber toward Iran is either delusional or disingenuous ... and I really don't think you're delusional.
Second ... she continues to avoid what anybody who understands the strategic situation knows as simple fact. Iran doesn't need to be deterred by us, they're already being deterred by a nuclear state: Israel. There is only one state whose possession of nuclear weapons in the region is destabilizing because it spurs everyone else in the region to pursue them .... and it's not Iran. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:11:25
First ... come on, Senator, you are far too experienced politically to think that when foreigners threaten a nation, you empower the *liberals*!!! Is that how it worked in America after 9/11? Where did it EVER work that way? To claim that you have "experts" that tell you it's not happening when we rattle the saber toward Iran is either delusional or disingenuous ... and I really don't think you're delusional.
Second ... she continues to avoid what anybody who understands the strategic situation knows as simple fact. Iran doesn't need to be deterred by us, they're already being deterred by a nuclear state: Israel. There is only one state whose possession of nuclear weapons in the region is destabilizing because it spurs everyone else in the region to pursue them .... and it's not Iran. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:11:25
Are You Taking Notes Now, George?
I watched as much as I could take ... infommercial format and pretty much the same level of journalism. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:26:03
The Gore Factor
I've been happy for Al Gore. You can see how much more relaxed he is just saying what he believes instead of mouthing the script provided by a national campaign staff. He's in his element now.
Don't put him back in that box. He wasn't a good national campaigner. He blew a very winnable election. He's doing good work where he is. If he wants to be Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Energy, bravo. But don't campaign, Al. Just don't. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:21:45
Don't put him back in that box. He wasn't a good national campaigner. He blew a very winnable election. He's doing good work where he is. If he wants to be Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Energy, bravo. But don't campaign, Al. Just don't. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:21:45
Bullies and Pulpits
Exactamundo. Every candidate has personal associations that are unfathomable to me. Wright's comments embarrass Obama, absolutely. But then, Bill Clinton's conduct publicly humiliated Hillary ... repeatedly ... yet her "judgment" in staying with him isn't a campaign issue. And you know, I don't want it to be ... I don't want the Presidential campaign to be an endless, tawdry rehashing of issues better suited to Us Magazine and The National Inquirer than to the op-ed pages of major news organizations.
He's got a nutty preacher? Hey, all preachers are pretty nutty in my book. Hillary went on The 700 Club, for cryin' out loud, talk about validating the legitimacy of whackjobs! But again, it's really not what I'm interested in, for the sake of the campaign.
Economics, statecraft, the kind of judges a candidate favors ... these are relevant issues, but they are not 10-second soundbite issues, and the modern media loathes complexity. They want a story they can promote with a shock-headline graphic, not a reasoned discussion.
I'm in full agreement with Chez on this one (although I'm not always) ... any electorate that lets things like this determine their chief executive choice gets exactly the government they deserve .... although the rest of the planet might not be as deserving of the consequences. posted 05/02/2008 at 14:03:22
He's got a nutty preacher? Hey, all preachers are pretty nutty in my book. Hillary went on The 700 Club, for cryin' out loud, talk about validating the legitimacy of whackjobs! But again, it's really not what I'm interested in, for the sake of the campaign.
Economics, statecraft, the kind of judges a candidate favors ... these are relevant issues, but they are not 10-second soundbite issues, and the modern media loathes complexity. They want a story they can promote with a shock-headline graphic, not a reasoned discussion.
I'm in full agreement with Chez on this one (although I'm not always) ... any electorate that lets things like this determine their chief executive choice gets exactly the government they deserve .... although the rest of the planet might not be as deserving of the consequences. posted 05/02/2008 at 14:03:22
Clinton's "Obliteration" Remark is Genocidal, Requires Apology
Eh, are you talking about Iran, or the Saudis that we sell advanced weaponry to? posted 05/02/2008 at 20:48:06
If Iran became a nuclear power and *attacked* Israel (keeping in mind I consider this about as likely as the Decepticons attacking Israel), what should the U.S. do?
Start advising people downwind of Iran how to deal with fallout, because the Israeli relation would leave a big glowing slab of glass where Tehran and Qom used to be. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:25:36
Start advising people downwind of Iran how to deal with fallout, because the Israeli relation would leave a big glowing slab of glass where Tehran and Qom used to be. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:25:36
Um ... you do know what 'Mutual' is, right?
We've been rattling the saber to prevent them from ever thinking about getting to a point where it can become "mutual" destruction and assure Israel's continued ability to unilaterally destroy anyone without fear of reprisal.
If we were in favor of M.A.D. in the Middle East we'd be *selling* the Iranians nukes. Not gonna happen, is it? Israel's unilateral possession of nukes is strategically destabilizing, Iran will *always* seek them as long as their potential long-term adversaries (Israel, India, China, Russia, U.S.) all possess the "I Win" button and Iran is left without a chair when the music stops. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:15:05
We've been rattling the saber to prevent them from ever thinking about getting to a point where it can become "mutual" destruction and assure Israel's continued ability to unilaterally destroy anyone without fear of reprisal.
If we were in favor of M.A.D. in the Middle East we'd be *selling* the Iranians nukes. Not gonna happen, is it? Israel's unilateral possession of nukes is strategically destabilizing, Iran will *always* seek them as long as their potential long-term adversaries (Israel, India, China, Russia, U.S.) all possess the "I Win" button and Iran is left without a chair when the music stops. posted 05/02/2008 at 20:15:05
You can't have studied our own nuclear deterrence policy through history to say that.
Intentions of a strategic adversary are irrelevant ... *capabilities* are all that matter when deciding on your own force structure. Iran should gamble with the lives of all its citizens that Israel will *never* be politically governed by the ultra-Orthodox extremists that stone and curse other Israelis for public displays of affection?
No sovereign nation accepts a *potential* adversary possessing an "I Win" button. We wouldn't. We don't. It's disingenuous to pretend that other nations will, and an offensive red herring to say that the mere observation that Israel's possession of these weapons impacts the strategic situation in the region as somehow 'anti-Semitic'. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:42:47
Intentions of a strategic adversary are irrelevant ... *capabilities* are all that matter when deciding on your own force structure. Iran should gamble with the lives of all its citizens that Israel will *never* be politically governed by the ultra-Orthodox extremists that stone and curse other Israelis for public displays of affection?
No sovereign nation accepts a *potential* adversary possessing an "I Win" button. We wouldn't. We don't. It's disingenuous to pretend that other nations will, and an offensive red herring to say that the mere observation that Israel's possession of these weapons impacts the strategic situation in the region as somehow 'anti-Semitic'. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:42:47
Wow, what an incredible distortion of how deterrence worked in the Cold War. The key word in Mutual Assured Destruction is *Mutual* ... both sides had the confidence of knowing that the other side was deterred from attacking with its arsenal by the Assurance that the retaliation they faced would make the attack the same as an attack on themselves.
We're seeking to aid Israel in keeping the status quo in effect: Unilateral Assured Destruction. Israel can destroy its neighbors whenever it wants, and of those neighbors only Pakistan can deter them from doing so with the promise of retaliation.
As long as that status exists, Iran will *never* accept a permanent "I Win" button being in Israel's possession. Believing anything else is delusional. Never mind that all the other historically aggressive empires in their hemisphere -- India, Russia and China -- have The Bomb, too.
We can either encourage a nuclear disarmament treaty for the *entire* region, or accept that everybody in the region who lacks nuclear weapons will ultimately pursue them, for the *exact* same reasons we would if we didn't have them. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:37:51
We're seeking to aid Israel in keeping the status quo in effect: Unilateral Assured Destruction. Israel can destroy its neighbors whenever it wants, and of those neighbors only Pakistan can deter them from doing so with the promise of retaliation.
As long as that status exists, Iran will *never* accept a permanent "I Win" button being in Israel's possession. Believing anything else is delusional. Never mind that all the other historically aggressive empires in their hemisphere -- India, Russia and China -- have The Bomb, too.
We can either encourage a nuclear disarmament treaty for the *entire* region, or accept that everybody in the region who lacks nuclear weapons will ultimately pursue them, for the *exact* same reasons we would if we didn't have them. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:37:51
Her answer indulged a ridiculous hypothetical, ignored the realities of the situation, and recklessly enabled the Bush Administration's rhetoric for instigating war with Iran.
The simple fact is that Iran attacked Israel with a nuke (which they won't be able to do for years, probably not during the next Administration), Israel would vaporize Iran in retaliation and *everyone knows this*, most especially Iran. To answer the question without raising this simple truth is either evidence of woeful ignorance of the strategic situation, or deliberate obfuscation to avoid talking about the main reason Iran would want nuclear weapons in the first place: all their potential military opponents already have them! posted 05/02/2008 at 14:14:19
The simple fact is that Iran attacked Israel with a nuke (which they won't be able to do for years, probably not during the next Administration), Israel would vaporize Iran in retaliation and *everyone knows this*, most especially Iran. To answer the question without raising this simple truth is either evidence of woeful ignorance of the strategic situation, or deliberate obfuscation to avoid talking about the main reason Iran would want nuclear weapons in the first place: all their potential military opponents already have them! posted 05/02/2008 at 14:14:19
The media focus on meaningless tabloid stories like Rev. Wright, while ignoring inflammatory and very un-Presidential comments like Senator Clinton's confrontational Iran rhetoric, is such a shameful reflection of where our political process is today.
Senator Clinton's comments only helped create a political atmosphere that enables the Bush Administration to make a case for aggressive, unprovoked warfare against another nation ... didn't she learn the tragic cost of that enabling behavior the last time? What is the benefit of her "experience" she touts if she learns nothing from it?
The correct answers to the "what happens if Iran nukes Israel" question are either (a) "Nobody thinks Iran will have that capabiliy before my *daughter* is running for President" or (b) "by the time we hear about it, Israel will have dealt with it quite thoroughly, don't you think?" Instead, she pandered to both neo-cons and the Israel lobby ... to the detriment of our nation and our party. Low point of the campaign. posted 05/02/2008 at 13:50:06
Senator Clinton's comments only helped create a political atmosphere that enables the Bush Administration to make a case for aggressive, unprovoked warfare against another nation ... didn't she learn the tragic cost of that enabling behavior the last time? What is the benefit of her "experience" she touts if she learns nothing from it?
The correct answers to the "what happens if Iran nukes Israel" question are either (a) "Nobody thinks Iran will have that capabiliy before my *daughter* is running for President" or (b) "by the time we hear about it, Israel will have dealt with it quite thoroughly, don't you think?" Instead, she pandered to both neo-cons and the Israel lobby ... to the detriment of our nation and our party. Low point of the campaign. posted 05/02/2008 at 13:50:06
Michigan's Fake Primary Produced Fake Results
What happened to MI and FL is certainly an embarrassment and a debacle. Democrats need to learn some lessons here and reform party procedure.
That being said, whatever is "unjust" about the FL and MI results was unjust when the DNC made their decision months ago on not seating those delegates, and ALL the major candidates agreed to it then. It is only now, when changing that decision can be utilized as a form of political gamesmanship to effect an outcome more favorable to one candidate than another, that one group tries to not only change the decision, but deride those that adhere to the decision.
What some seem to forget is that independent, undecided voters will ultimately make the difference on who wins the general election, and it is *exactly* this kind of gamesmanship that turns off those voters and makes them look at the candidates who engage in these tactics as untrustworthy.
No one doubts for a moment that, if the Clinton campaign's advisers (whoever they are this week) genuinely believed that seating the delegates of MI and FL would favor Obama instead of their candidate, they would be as zealous in their support of the original DNC ruling as they are now in favor of overturning it. The voters who will ultimately swing this election one way or another generally see right through this gamesmanship, and it does not enhance Senator Clinton's or their party's chances of victory in November, it diminishes it. posted 05/02/2008 at 10:41:15
That being said, whatever is "unjust" about the FL and MI results was unjust when the DNC made their decision months ago on not seating those delegates, and ALL the major candidates agreed to it then. It is only now, when changing that decision can be utilized as a form of political gamesmanship to effect an outcome more favorable to one candidate than another, that one group tries to not only change the decision, but deride those that adhere to the decision.
What some seem to forget is that independent, undecided voters will ultimately make the difference on who wins the general election, and it is *exactly* this kind of gamesmanship that turns off those voters and makes them look at the candidates who engage in these tactics as untrustworthy.
No one doubts for a moment that, if the Clinton campaign's advisers (whoever they are this week) genuinely believed that seating the delegates of MI and FL would favor Obama instead of their candidate, they would be as zealous in their support of the original DNC ruling as they are now in favor of overturning it. The voters who will ultimately swing this election one way or another generally see right through this gamesmanship, and it does not enhance Senator Clinton's or their party's chances of victory in November, it diminishes it. posted 05/02/2008 at 10:41:15
On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
She didn't stop the war, the economy is a shambles, oversight of federal agencies gave us Katrina and no-bid Halliburton contracts .... what exactly is the 'real change' she's accomplished? Getting a flag-burning law passed? posted 05/01/2008 at 16:02:25
Even if we read all that is 100% true, it wouldn't be a way of differentiating between the candidates. Wright has never publicly humiliated Obama as Bill has publicly humiliated Hillary (repeatedly) ... so if we're going to focus on the inexplicable personal loyalties of the candidates to friends and family, instead of little things like who we're bombing and where we're creating jobs, this still wouldn't be an area that I'm being given a clearcut choice.
Less focus on tabloid misdirection, more focus on policy, please. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:54:03
Less focus on tabloid misdirection, more focus on policy, please. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:54:03
But, not too much to hire plenty of Mark Penns and James Carvilles to do it for her. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:15:22
This would all be very persuasive if we didn't know that the Clinton campaign would take exactly the opposite position if the rules they agreed to months ago in not seating FL and MI turned out to help Hillary's nomination rather than hinder it. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:02:21
A cogent and thoughtful call for emphasizing the positive. This nation has to deal with issues of war and peace, poverty and employment ... let's get beyond the trivial tabloid issues of whose preacher says what and whose husband bangs who and get on with things that are actually of consequence and the real differences between the Democratic and Republican nominees. posted 05/01/2008 at 13:47:06
Superdelegates and the Rules of the Game
There's the disagreement: is one potential nominee more electable than the other. I by no means see it as a given that we can make a distinction on this basis. Each candidate has weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the national campaign. Each brings certain strengths.
Whoever is the nominee, if they lose in the general election there will be a lot of finger pointing and hand wringing that we chose the wrong nominee and the other candidate would have won. It will never be anything but Monday morning quarterbacking, because we'll really never know. posted 05/01/2008 at 13:58:40
Whoever is the nominee, if they lose in the general election there will be a lot of finger pointing and hand wringing that we chose the wrong nominee and the other candidate would have won. It will never be anything but Monday morning quarterbacking, because we'll really never know. posted 05/01/2008 at 13:58:40
Agreed ... a second carrier moving into the Gulf is news. American planes bombing urban areas in Baghdad is news. Escalating tensions with Iran is news. McCain's hairbrained economic proposals are news.
Whether a Holy Joe that one of the candidates knows says ridiculous things ... can we just take it as a given that all the candidates know a Holy Joe and they all say some pretty deranged things, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the state of our economy and whether we make war on women and children? posted 05/01/2008 at 13:55:58
Whether a Holy Joe that one of the candidates knows says ridiculous things ... can we just take it as a given that all the candidates know a Holy Joe and they all say some pretty deranged things, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the state of our economy and whether we make war on women and children? posted 05/01/2008 at 13:55:58
Gates: New US Carrier In Gulf A "Reminder" To Iran
Hillary's comments that have helped legitimize the Bush saber-rattling towards Iran have been the low point of the Democratic primary for me, and far more relevant than what anybody's preacher said ... but can we get the media to focus on the fact that we're letting incompetence lead us to more warfare and the slaughter of more innocents?
No no, too hard, too much of a downer, let's talk about preachers and Miley Cyrus' bare back. Bread and circuses. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:54:37
No no, too hard, too much of a downer, let's talk about preachers and Miley Cyrus' bare back. Bread and circuses. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:54:37
Sexualizing Miley: Are Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus Letting Her Be The New Lolita?
Well, I guess if you see a picture by a world-renowned photographer showing no more skin than the average bathing suit to be the exact same thing as getting 14-yr-olds pregnant, then yes, it's no different at all. If you think a publicity stunt to enhance the revenue of a global media star, with her consent, to be the same thing as statutory rape, then it's no different at all.
But .... you'd have to be crazier than those Texas parents to think they're the same thing, wouldn't you? posted 04/29/2008 at 12:49:08
But .... you'd have to be crazier than those Texas parents to think they're the same thing, wouldn't you? posted 04/29/2008 at 12:49:08
And yet, artistic portrayal of sexuality in their teen years did nothing to harm the careers of Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields, or Natalie Portman, for example. posted 04/29/2008 at 10:53:57
The Crystal Method to Richard Quest's Madness
"Well, that explains a lot."
Unquestionably, but ...
"I admit that I rarely passed up an opportunity to put Quest on television; no matter where he was or what he was covering .... His pieces didn't always carry the kind of weight that would make him a first or even second block hit, but there was no denying his special brand of insane gravitas."
That sounds like an admission that you were an enthusiastic participant in the process that turned CNN from a news organization into a clown show, and I've got to say Chez, it really diminishes my sympathy for you over your termination. Whenever I've been in London in the last couple years, if I happened upon the bizarre Quest on CNN, I groaned and asked 'omg which channel is BBC?' posted 04/28/2008 at 19:35:05
Unquestionably, but ...
"I admit that I rarely passed up an opportunity to put Quest on television; no matter where he was or what he was covering .... His pieces didn't always carry the kind of weight that would make him a first or even second block hit, but there was no denying his special brand of insane gravitas."
That sounds like an admission that you were an enthusiastic participant in the process that turned CNN from a news organization into a clown show, and I've got to say Chez, it really diminishes my sympathy for you over your termination. Whenever I've been in London in the last couple years, if I happened upon the bizarre Quest on CNN, I groaned and asked 'omg which channel is BBC?' posted 04/28/2008 at 19:35:05
MoveOn: Obama Got Outfoxed
There's an upside to appearing on Fox News ... you can turn down all future requests, but when people ask "why won't you appear on Fox News" you can say "I didn't, I was on Fox News."
Once. posted 04/29/2008 at 10:10:44
Once. posted 04/29/2008 at 10:10:44
McCain calls Obama insensitive to poor people
I guess he changed his official campaign transportation from the Straight Talk Express to the S.S. Swift Boat .... posted 04/27/2008 at 22:32:55
McCain Exploited Legal Loophole To Use Wife's Jet On The Cheap
Exactamundo ... I knew he had dough, that's not the issue. I know his foreign policy and the kind of Supreme Court justices he'll appoint -- those are issues. posted 04/28/2008 at 09:33:00
Just think of it as "looking Presidential" .... when the successful candidate will get to tool around in Marine One or Air Force One at taxpayer expense and burn gasoline like it was a penny a gallon. posted 04/28/2008 at 01:17:50
Maybe Nader has to rent a Prius at the market rate, but besides that ...... come on. posted 04/28/2008 at 00:56:33
I have to say, I don't really see the "loophole" here. He's using a family asset, all the candidates do that, whether it's Hillary loaning herself money or McCain using the family jet. Is it a "loophole" if they own a nice house and have a fundraiser there? If Cindy buys a Mercedes, can John borrow it without an appearance of impropriety?
The finance laws exist to avoid the appearance (or reality) of undue influence .... I think we can take it for granted that the candidate's spouse has plenty of influence and always will. posted 04/27/2008 at 23:15:22
The finance laws exist to avoid the appearance (or reality) of undue influence .... I think we can take it for granted that the candidate's spouse has plenty of influence and always will. posted 04/27/2008 at 23:15:22
No Place for Religion: On Jeremiah Wright and Our Culture of Disbelief
I never referred to the far right faith vote ... I think the groups you referenced all include people of faith that are trained in the mindset of acting on what they wish were true instead of taking the hard road of analyzing whether it's even remotely likely to be true and acting accordingly. How could anyone have come to the rational, calculated conclusion that re-electing GWB was the way to prevent 9/11's and intelligently fight wars? He was the guy in charge on 9/11 and he wages war with platitudes and incompetence, but still a bunch of people were convinced by lofty words and slick packaging.
The Believer mindset isn't restricted to any political ideology in this country, but we have a larger percentage of population that adopt this mindset than any other industrial democracy, thanks to numerous historical influences. I know people want the reassurance of believing that some part of them is immortal ... but the delusions they perpetuate to keep this belief alive are killing people.
I'm with Umberto Eco on this one: "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma -- a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." posted 04/28/2008 at 19:01:14
The Believer mindset isn't restricted to any political ideology in this country, but we have a larger percentage of population that adopt this mindset than any other industrial democracy, thanks to numerous historical influences. I know people want the reassurance of believing that some part of them is immortal ... but the delusions they perpetuate to keep this belief alive are killing people.
I'm with Umberto Eco on this one: "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma -- a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." posted 04/28/2008 at 19:01:14
You're right to be sensitive to any stereotype that labels a very large, vaguely defined group of people as sharing a universal set of beliefs and behaviors. I never meant to imply that it's true of any large group. Democrats don't all agree on everything, nor do Republicans, nor do Christians, Muslims, Jews or Zoroastrians.
So no, I don't think that all people of faith voted for Bush, any more than I think all people of faith reject modern biology being taught in schools.
But I think there ARE millions of people of faith who base their entire life, and their voting habits, on a mindset that elevates acceptance of dogma over critical thinking and a requirement of proof, and it would be impossible to get a George Bush elected without them. posted 04/28/2008 at 17:03:07
So no, I don't think that all people of faith voted for Bush, any more than I think all people of faith reject modern biology being taught in schools.
But I think there ARE millions of people of faith who base their entire life, and their voting habits, on a mindset that elevates acceptance of dogma over critical thinking and a requirement of proof, and it would be impossible to get a George Bush elected without them. posted 04/28/2008 at 17:03:07
Yes, we are a "believing nation", and it's hard to argue that it's a good thing. We have a huge populace that is trained to "believe" that things are true because they wish they were, even if they have nothing but the word of an authority figure to tell them that it's so. When you train people's minds to work that way, is it any wonder that they vote for a pampered, combat-dodging daddy's boy but "believe" he's a great military leader and can protect them from the world's dangers? Their choice makes no sense at all, but it doesn't have to, their decision wasn't based on rational analysis of self interest, it was based on what they wished was true and an authority figure willing to tell them what to *believe*.
America indeed has more Believers than any other industrialized nation. And look what that got us: a nation that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation in the world, spends more on weapons than any other nation in the world, and kills more people with its military than any other nation in the world.
Hallelujah, let's pray for more of that? posted 04/28/2008 at 15:50:17
America indeed has more Believers than any other industrialized nation. And look what that got us: a nation that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation in the world, spends more on weapons than any other nation in the world, and kills more people with its military than any other nation in the world.
Hallelujah, let's pray for more of that? posted 04/28/2008 at 15:50:17
Can Hillary Really Win?
Before Obama even won a state in this election I thought Hillary's negatives made her an iffy proposition to win the general election, unless the Republicans were generous enough to nominate Rudy.
Since then, unfortunately, her campaign has succeeded at nothing except driving up her negatives, not just with independents and Republicans, but within her own party. Electability is now the *last* thing I see as a compelling reason to favor her.
As for Michigan and Florida ... please stop beating the disinformation drum on an issue that was resolved by the DNC before the first vote was cast, in a deal Hillary agreed to abide by until it became one of the few ways to keep the faint spark of her nomination's chances alive. The gamesmanship over those states is an embarrassment to the party and the nation. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:07:54
Since then, unfortunately, her campaign has succeeded at nothing except driving up her negatives, not just with independents and Republicans, but within her own party. Electability is now the *last* thing I see as a compelling reason to favor her.
As for Michigan and Florida ... please stop beating the disinformation drum on an issue that was resolved by the DNC before the first vote was cast, in a deal Hillary agreed to abide by until it became one of the few ways to keep the faint spark of her nomination's chances alive. The gamesmanship over those states is an embarrassment to the party and the nation. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:07:54
Hillary Is Not A Monster
I could easily have written her comments off as a mistake if it had just been at the debate, but she was clearly trying to show she's "Presidential tough" by repeating the drumbeat on ABC the next day.
No mention of Israel's nuclear capability, no rational response that the hypothetical is *extremely* unlikely and that Israel is deterring Iran just fine on its own ... saber-rattling and chest-thumping. I could go to Cheney for that. posted 04/28/2008 at 01:09:40
No mention of Israel's nuclear capability, no rational response that the hypothetical is *extremely* unlikely and that Israel is deterring Iran just fine on its own ... saber-rattling and chest-thumping. I could go to Cheney for that. posted 04/28/2008 at 01:09:40
My single biggest reason for disappointment in Hillary's comments on Iran was she, yet again, has learned nothing from her mistaken original Iraq war vote and is still enabling and reinforcing the Bush Administration's drumbeat for war.
NOT what I'm looking for in a democratic nominee ... her comments were not the comments of an "experienced" professional in foreign affairs, they were the comments of somebody who learned how to be Presidential watching "Air Force One". posted 04/27/2008 at 22:54:03
NOT what I'm looking for in a democratic nominee ... her comments were not the comments of an "experienced" professional in foreign affairs, they were the comments of somebody who learned how to be Presidential watching "Air Force One". posted 04/27/2008 at 22:54:03
Whereas the completely non-hypothetical issue of Israel's possession of nukes being strategically destabilizing (as it motivates everyone else to seek them even more urgently) wasn't raised at all. posted 04/27/2008 at 22:19:36
Send humanitarian aid to the Israelis ... we won't need to worry about Iran because by the time we get the news, the Israelis would have reduced it to a series of smoking craters.
The question itself is just insulting to our intelligence and I'm offended that neither candidate didn't just laugh out loud at the questioner and say "I don't know, what if they're attacked by space monkeys? That's about as likely."
Israel is deterring Iran just fine with their nuclear arsenal, but I noticed the candidates were too leery of major contributors' wrath to mention that the only destabilizing nuclear power in the region is Israel. posted 04/27/2008 at 21:04:46
The question itself is just insulting to our intelligence and I'm offended that neither candidate didn't just laugh out loud at the questioner and say "I don't know, what if they're attacked by space monkeys? That's about as likely."
Israel is deterring Iran just fine with their nuclear arsenal, but I noticed the candidates were too leery of major contributors' wrath to mention that the only destabilizing nuclear power in the region is Israel. posted 04/27/2008 at 21:04:46
Pelosi On The Dream Ticket: "No, I Don't Think It's A Good Idea"
I'd think Hillary would be grateful for this "out" from accepting the VP call that she surely has no interest in answering. Influential U.S. Senator, or marginalized VP sent on goodwill missions as far from D.C. as Obama's staff can think of? Oooh, tough choice. posted 04/25/2008 at 12:11:03
I wouldn't expect that Obama would want VP Hillary any more than Kennedy wanted LBJ, and it would be just as poor a fit of ideology and style ... but if it's for the good of the party and the electability of the ticket, maybe he would be willing to hold his nose and do it.
But ... I absolutely don't see Hillary & Bill settling for VP, knowing that she'd be totally marginalized in an Obama Administration. Give up her role in the Senate to be the person who goes on fact-finding missions to Botswana? I don't see it. posted 04/25/2008 at 11:05:56
But ... I absolutely don't see Hillary & Bill settling for VP, knowing that she'd be totally marginalized in an Obama Administration. Give up her role in the Senate to be the person who goes on fact-finding missions to Botswana? I don't see it. posted 04/25/2008 at 11:05:56
CNN Sued For $1.3 Billion Over Cafferty Remarks
There are many, many consumer choices where you can either take a Chinese product without knowing it, or shop a little more carefully and get a product of superior quality and slightly higher price from another country ... say, a democracy. It's pretty easy. Especially if you don't over-consume to start with and buy lots of cheap crap you don't really need at Wal-Mart.
The Chinese people don't have a meaningful vote ... but we can vote for them with our dollars, the only vote the Party cares about any more. posted 04/25/2008 at 12:04:37
The Chinese people don't have a meaningful vote ... but we can vote for them with our dollars, the only vote the Party cares about any more. posted 04/25/2008 at 12:04:37
If the beautician and teacher want to know what a *real* violation of dignity feels like, they could wear "Free Tibet" t-shirts in Tinanmen for a day and see what happens to them in prison. posted 04/25/2008 at 11:02:44
Arianna on ABC's 20/20
I'm not sure why, after the ABC debate debacle, Arianna would agree to appear on this network. I won't be watching her appearance here, any more than I'd watch her if she guest-starred on WWF to discuss important issues with Vince McMahon. posted 04/25/2008 at 16:21:10
Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton
So in one sentence, Joe Klein simultaneously says that Obama's problem is that he goes to the wrong church ... and is befuddled by people who go to church.
That's some quality journalism right there, Time .... posted 04/28/2008 at 19:20:36
That's some quality journalism right there, Time .... posted 04/28/2008 at 19:20:36
Clinton Debt $5 Million Higher Than Reported
Meh, non-story ... all campaigns use the Major League Baseball method of accounting: show a profit when you need to, plead poverty when you need that.
It's great preparation for "creative" economic policy if they get elected, too. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:41:07
It's great preparation for "creative" economic policy if they get elected, too. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:41:07
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean May Intervene In Dem Primary
Nixon and Bush were re-elected, it's not exactly a Medal of Honor ...... posted 04/24/2008 at 18:39:17
So, Reid & Pelosi couldn't stop the war with 60% of the country against it, but they're going to stop this dispute that 25% of the country (maybe) gives a rat's butt about .....
Riiiiiiight. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:20:39
Riiiiiiight. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:20:39
Not much, apparently the country is still full of people who attack other people at the drop of a hat .... from the generation that mistakes flaming for analyzing. posted 04/24/2008 at 17:01:51
Hm ... what carries less weight, a threat of political action by Dean/Pelosi/Reid, or a threat by France to go to war? posted 04/24/2008 at 16:54:07
Cheney's Compulsive Obsession with Iraq WMDs & Syrian Nukes
Man am I tired of my own government reacting to every Israeli complaint about somebody else trying to reach strategic parity with them by saying "Gosh we can't have that, who can we bomb for you?"
Correct answer: "Then maybe we ought to help you negotiate a Middle East nuclear disarmament treaty with full inspection at suspected nuclear sites .... starting with yours."
Yean right, it'll be a cold day at AIPAC's offices when that happens. posted 04/24/2008 at 12:38:29
Correct answer: "Then maybe we ought to help you negotiate a Middle East nuclear disarmament treaty with full inspection at suspected nuclear sites .... starting with yours."
Yean right, it'll be a cold day at AIPAC's offices when that happens. posted 04/24/2008 at 12:38:29
Whoopi: "Part Of Me Wants Mccain To Win"
On this logic, we should have made Goering the first chancellor of postwar Germany.
Genius. posted 04/23/2008 at 18:49:24
Genius. posted 04/23/2008 at 18:49:24
Kids Be Gone: High Pitch Only Teens Can Hear Used As Deterrent (AUDIO)
Hm .... now if you can just give me a device that broadcasts that tone through the headphones of any iPod within 50-100 feet ...... posted 04/23/2008 at 19:26:39
Jimmy Carter: Rice "Not Telling Truth" About Hamas Meeting
Since when has this Administration allowed a Secretary of State to tell the truth about anything? posted 04/23/2008 at 16:59:47
Shannon Elizabeth Cries, Rants About "Dancing With The Stars" Judges' Critique
Possibly related to no straight male being able to tell her 'No' since she was 14 or 15, but hey, it had to happen someday Shannon. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:22:59
Evan Bayh Defends Clinton's Iran Talk, Says McCain Beats Bush On Environment
Do we really want to compare their history of funding paramilitaries in their hemisphere with our history in this hemisphere? posted 04/23/2008 at 21:34:07
"In fact, taking a strong stance beforehand probably minimizes a chance of that thing happening. If you give the Iranians any reason to believe there wouldn't be a vigorous response, well, you don't want that to happen."
Which is why an answer that didn't seem completely oblivious to the real strategic situation probably would have been the right course for Hillary, if she was going to deign to answer such a ditzy question. Something along the lines of "Well Israel is already deterring the hell out of them on that one, I doubt we're ever going to be asked to nuke the craters that Israel leaves behind if such an attack occurred." posted 04/23/2008 at 21:24:26
Which is why an answer that didn't seem completely oblivious to the real strategic situation probably would have been the right course for Hillary, if she was going to deign to answer such a ditzy question. Something along the lines of "Well Israel is already deterring the hell out of them on that one, I doubt we're ever going to be asked to nuke the craters that Israel leaves behind if such an attack occurred." posted 04/23/2008 at 21:24:26
Surrender, Integrity
You had me at "there's really no need to subject myself to most of the horseshit the networks try to pass off as legitimate news these days."
Turn it off, let 'em go broke, no valuable national resource left in the dreck that calls itself Network News. posted 04/23/2008 at 21:21:08
Turn it off, let 'em go broke, no valuable national resource left in the dreck that calls itself Network News. posted 04/23/2008 at 21:21:08
The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary
Um, because the Party agreed it would be that way long before they knew the results, and the results don't demonstrate anything if the candidates lived up to their pledge not to campaign there (or even, possibly appear on the ballot).
Wanting to count Michigan and Florida now is like New England asking for each yard gained in the Super Bowl to count for .2 points ... after the game is played and the score tallied. Never mind the rules we agreed to before, let's have new rules!
Bill Maher gets New Rules ... not the Democratic Party mid-election. posted 04/23/2008 at 14:40:10
Wanting to count Michigan and Florida now is like New England asking for each yard gained in the Super Bowl to count for .2 points ... after the game is played and the score tallied. Never mind the rules we agreed to before, let's have new rules!
Bill Maher gets New Rules ... not the Democratic Party mid-election. posted 04/23/2008 at 14:40:10
Here we go again, Mr. Schlesinger's reflexive morning-after cheerleading for Team Clinton. One gets the feeling that if an asteroid struck in the Atlantic and laid waste to the eastern coast of America, Schlesinger would write a column the next day about how it was really a good sign for Hillary's electability.
This kind of piece makes NFL cheerleaders look like Sartre in comparison. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:04:42
This kind of piece makes NFL cheerleaders look like Sartre in comparison. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:04:42
Clinton says tide is turning
Time for the sports analogy:
Hillary is racing Obama at the Daytona 500 ... she's on the lead lap, but 20 seconds behind race leader Obama. As they take the white flag, there's realistically no way for her to take the lead unless Obama crashes or his car breaks, but she did take 2 seconds off his lead on the last lap.
Eh, but nobody ever got to hold up the trophy and spray champagne around for taking 2 seconds off the winner's lead late in the race, sorry. posted 04/23/2008 at 17:11:55
Hillary is racing Obama at the Daytona 500 ... she's on the lead lap, but 20 seconds behind race leader Obama. As they take the white flag, there's realistically no way for her to take the lead unless Obama crashes or his car breaks, but she did take 2 seconds off his lead on the last lap.
Eh, but nobody ever got to hold up the trophy and spray champagne around for taking 2 seconds off the winner's lead late in the race, sorry. posted 04/23/2008 at 17:11:55
Thoughts on Pennsylvania, Clinton and Obama from a "Realisticrat"
Reasoning as specious and empty as this deserves quite a bit of scorn .... it's not support of Clinton that draws fire from me, I have plenty of friends supporting Hillary ..... it's using such absurd reasoning that doesn't pass the basic "Does it make you laugh out loud at the absurdity?" test to try to advocate for her that draws most of the commentary you'll see in this topic.
This guy must find infommercials to be "compelling narratives" with the standard he sets. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:34:41
This guy must find infommercials to be "compelling narratives" with the standard he sets. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:34:41
My first clue he wasn't *trying* to have a rational discussion was when he cited David Brooks as an impartial source on the merits of the campaign. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:19:21
Yay for realism ... you get the impression that if Andy lived in Russia in the early 20th century he would have been telling his friends "Sure Stalin is a ruthless mass murderer, but that's what wins in this country so let's all get behind him, huh?"
Nothing much admirable about abandoning your own values to become a Suckupocrat. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:14:46
Nothing much admirable about abandoning your own values to become a Suckupocrat. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:14:46
I have never been able to fathom the "Hillary is tested against the attack machine" logic ... because it's not logical.
She failed to get healthcare reform passed when she was inside the White House ... the administration she got her "experience" in left in such disgrace that George Bush was able to be elected -- twice. She has only proved able to *fail disastrously* against the Republican attack machine, unless she just rolls over for them and votes for war and flag-burning laws.
Yes, she was tested: and failed. Yes she's experienced: at failure.
Where has she succeeded? One state -- New York. She has a constituency and a power base there ... focus on the positives and stick with that, Hillary, on a national level you are associated with a major losing streak against the Republicans. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:06:25
She failed to get healthcare reform passed when she was inside the White House ... the administration she got her "experience" in left in such disgrace that George Bush was able to be elected -- twice. She has only proved able to *fail disastrously* against the Republican attack machine, unless she just rolls over for them and votes for war and flag-burning laws.
Yes, she was tested: and failed. Yes she's experienced: at failure.
Where has she succeeded? One state -- New York. She has a constituency and a power base there ... focus on the positives and stick with that, Hillary, on a national level you are associated with a major losing streak against the Republicans. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:06:25
Tony Snow, CNN Commentator: A (Long) Litany Of Past Sins
Is there an active campaign at CNN to keep me from ever watching their network again? It's like an iota of credibility disqualifies you from employment over there.
Television News has become an oxymoron. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:12:13
Television News has become an oxymoron. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:12:13
Bill Clinton: Obama "Played The Race Card On Me"... Listen To Audio
Isn't it clear?
When Bill manipulates issues of race, it's "Tactics."
When others do it, it's "playing the race card." posted 04/22/2008 at 11:01:36
When Bill manipulates issues of race, it's "Tactics."
When others do it, it's "playing the race card." posted 04/22/2008 at 11:01:36
Hillary Clinton On Olbermann: Laughs Off 'Unholy Alliance' With Democratic Antagonist Scaife
Or she wants to play the Joker in another Batman movie .... posted 04/22/2008 at 14:45:49
They were disturbing comments, and an unfortunate affirmation of a fear I had early on about a Hillary Clinton candidacy -- that in the effort to look "as tough as the guys" she would say or do something ill-advised or downright scary. Count these in the "downright scary" category.
What answer would I have preferred? I'd love to hear a serious candidate say "Well the possession of or pursuit of nuclear weapons by Middle East nations is certainly a threat to everyone on the planet, and as President I'd vigorously pursue diplomacy to establish a comprehensive inspection and disarmament protocol for the entire region ..."
Okay, so what could I accept from somebody that doesn't want to alienate AIPAC? "Our best intelligence suggests that Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon, and these wild theoreticals about future action aren't the kind of thing a responsible leader would speculate about in the world press." posted 04/22/2008 at 14:42:00
What answer would I have preferred? I'd love to hear a serious candidate say "Well the possession of or pursuit of nuclear weapons by Middle East nations is certainly a threat to everyone on the planet, and as President I'd vigorously pursue diplomacy to establish a comprehensive inspection and disarmament protocol for the entire region ..."
Okay, so what could I accept from somebody that doesn't want to alienate AIPAC? "Our best intelligence suggests that Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon, and these wild theoreticals about future action aren't the kind of thing a responsible leader would speculate about in the world press." posted 04/22/2008 at 14:42:00
Bush Three Is Wrong -- Is Clinton Three Any Better?
If you think a President can affect free market forces to change energy prices in a reliable way, you're in for a lot of disappointment. I don't think Hillary is going to discover a vast new reserve of oil in her backyard ... even if Bill is back there a-shootin' for some food. posted 04/22/2008 at 10:43:55
Clinton On Iran Attack: "Totally Obliterate Them"
Besides it being a ridiculously improbable hypothetical, consider the depth of ignorance betrayed by any answer other than "I'd ask the Israelis to try not to vaporize much of the region besides Iran itself when they retaliate." posted 04/21/2008 at 19:37:10
You know one of my concerns about Hillary all along? That she'll go overboard trying to prove she's as "tough as the guys" and really get us into some needless deep doo-doo.
Hey, don't I feel reassured now!
Correct answer: "Nobody thinks Iran will be even close to a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years."
Answer she gave: "Do you smell what the Hillary is cookin'? DO YA?"
Ugh.
I will have to watch the full video after GMA tomorrow, it's pretty hard for me to believe any national candidate would be so irresponsible as to theorize about nuking another nation, even Iran. posted 04/21/2008 at 19:28:54
Hey, don't I feel reassured now!
Correct answer: "Nobody thinks Iran will be even close to a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years."
Answer she gave: "Do you smell what the Hillary is cookin'? DO YA?"
Ugh.
I will have to watch the full video after GMA tomorrow, it's pretty hard for me to believe any national candidate would be so irresponsible as to theorize about nuking another nation, even Iran. posted 04/21/2008 at 19:28:54
Bill Clinton: Hillary Would Be Winning Under GOP Primary Rules
And under Zimbabwe rules, Bush would already have been re-elected.
Eh ... and your point, Bill? posted 04/21/2008 at 19:32:50
Eh ... and your point, Bill? posted 04/21/2008 at 19:32:50
I know he has to be a 'zealous advocate' for the wife, but I swear, every comment Mr. Clinton makes during this campaign has me doing a Judge Smales imitation: "Ohhhh, Billy Billy Billy Billy Billy ..... " posted 04/21/2008 at 18:38:52
Bill of all people should know (okay, he does) that we're not the party of lockstep Orthodoxy the Republicans try to be .... and we don't want to be.
But as usual, he's saying whatever he thinks will get the job (electing the wife) done, whether he believes a syllable of it or not ... and that's the tragedy of Bill after he got up on national TV and lied to us -- maybe he believes what he's saying, but you can't. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:27:44
But as usual, he's saying whatever he thinks will get the job (electing the wife) done, whether he believes a syllable of it or not ... and that's the tragedy of Bill after he got up on national TV and lied to us -- maybe he believes what he's saying, but you can't. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:27:44
Some Last-Minute Obama Thoughts, After Canvasing in PA
How about FACT DEFINITION ?
He is older ... 'more experienced' or 'less experienced' is a value judgment, since neither is actually experienced at being President of the United States. I guess if they were running for Head Lifeguard, PT109 experience would be unquestionably relevant, but ............. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:11:13
He is older ... 'more experienced' or 'less experienced' is a value judgment, since neither is actually experienced at being President of the United States. I guess if they were running for Head Lifeguard, PT109 experience would be unquestionably relevant, but ............. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:11:13
Hillary Clinton Ad Features Osama Bin Laden: Campaign AdWatch
While this has become my least favorite aspect of HuffPo and really does cut down my site visits, I don't think this is a particularly good example. posted 04/21/2008 at 17:03:41
Hear that voice at the back of the room? It's Mark Penn saying "It worked for Bush ... twice." posted 04/21/2008 at 16:48:16
Just .... WEIRD.
Because, how did the Harry Truman line fit in with the rest of the content? It was like, that was the tag line they wanted to use, originally in a commercial showing Obama complaining about negative campaigning, but they replaced all that with 9-11/Katrina/Economy images and KEPT the Truman line anyway. WEIRD.
Yes, I want somebody who is ready .... not somebody who will choke on the biggest decision of their life and trust George Bush with war-making powers. I entered this campaign very undecided about which candidate I'd endorse in the primaries ... the Clinton campaign has consistently let me down and pushed me away with decision after decision that makes me really question Hillary's capability to make good choices about the people she surrounds herself with and listens to. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:21:35
Because, how did the Harry Truman line fit in with the rest of the content? It was like, that was the tag line they wanted to use, originally in a commercial showing Obama complaining about negative campaigning, but they replaced all that with 9-11/Katrina/Economy images and KEPT the Truman line anyway. WEIRD.
Yes, I want somebody who is ready .... not somebody who will choke on the biggest decision of their life and trust George Bush with war-making powers. I entered this campaign very undecided about which candidate I'd endorse in the primaries ... the Clinton campaign has consistently let me down and pushed me away with decision after decision that makes me really question Hillary's capability to make good choices about the people she surrounds herself with and listens to. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:21:35
Michael Moore Endorses Obama, Calls Clinton Tactics "Disgusting"
Since ultimately it's going to be Congress, not the President, who determines the shape of any healthcare reform, the differences between the Hillary and Obama plans are negligible and irrelevant to this campaign.
But the Commander in Chief has a huge impact on where the troops go, so yes, I rank that as a much more significant issue in terms of choosing the Chief Executive this time around. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:09:20
But the Commander in Chief has a huge impact on where the troops go, so yes, I rank that as a much more significant issue in terms of choosing the Chief Executive this time around. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:09:20
Can anybody else on the planet claim to be simultaneously as hated by Big Tobacco, the NRA, Bush, and Hillary Supporters as Moore now can?
Give your bodyguards a raise, Mike. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:57:19
Give your bodyguards a raise, Mike. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:57:19
White Men
"MANY white men in SOME parts of pennsylvania, namely the rural parts, will be unlikely to (read: will NOT under any circumstances) vote for barack because he is black and they dont like him as president for that reason"
As, presumably, will some old white women, and young Hispanic men, and middle-aged Japanese metrosexuals, and ...... at what point does the microanalysis just become laughable? posted 04/21/2008 at 10:25:53
As, presumably, will some old white women, and young Hispanic men, and middle-aged Japanese metrosexuals, and ...... at what point does the microanalysis just become laughable? posted 04/21/2008 at 10:25:53
"a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son ..."
Pardon me but ... WHAT? Have you been to a state legislature in the last 20 years? Or even the U.S. Senate? My state is whiter than many and I'm pretty sure we have about the same ratio of males to females as the average state, but by some staggering magic we elected a woman as Governor and two as our U.S. Senators.
"A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal."
A lot of writers confuse baseless hyperbole with insight ... and what's more, they think it's normal. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:13:08
Pardon me but ... WHAT? Have you been to a state legislature in the last 20 years? Or even the U.S. Senate? My state is whiter than many and I'm pretty sure we have about the same ratio of males to females as the average state, but by some staggering magic we elected a woman as Governor and two as our U.S. Senators.
"A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal."
A lot of writers confuse baseless hyperbole with insight ... and what's more, they think it's normal. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:13:08
Thousands Protest CNN's Cafferty In Los Angeles
I look forward to the day that Chinese citizens can protest in Tinanmen, against a central govt. policy, with the same fervor that their relatives can protest issues in California.
I doubt I'll live to see it. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:52:09
I doubt I'll live to see it. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:52:09
McCain in 2008 = Clinton in 2012
Well, 15 months ago I thought she could win, but the choices made during this campaign have convinced me that her negatives are higher than ever. She was a shoe-in against Giuliani, but against McCain I've got serious doubts she can win now.
She may be ready for Day 1 in the White House, but she wasn't ready for Day 1 after Iowa, and I was singularly unimpressed by her judgment from that point onward. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:29:25
She may be ready for Day 1 in the White House, but she wasn't ready for Day 1 after Iowa, and I was singularly unimpressed by her judgment from that point onward. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:29:25
I advise all woman out there to ignore Chinese agents seeking to generate ill-will and confusion in America ... which is the only conclusion your grammar's can lead to. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:19:09
Wow, I haven't seen this much wishful thinking since my buddy's 12-yr-old asked for a Porsche for Christmas ....
McCain will be "happy with one term" and will bow out because of age and infirmity? Ya right, the RNC will get him transfusions from sorority girls if that's what it takes to keep a Republican incumbent in the White House. Keep dreamin'.
And this, I'm afraid, is as close as Hillary is getting. Nobody is going to forget her scorched-Earth approach to campaigning over the last few months, calling everyone who fails to fall into line a Judas or an Idiot, wallowing in Rove-ian fear tactics.
All the national party will remember about Hillary in 2012 is the animosity and ill-will generated within the party in 2008 ... she'll be even more entrenched in the Senate and they'll all rationalize that it's better to keep her there and utilize her skills than fracture the party with her -- again. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:07:05
McCain will be "happy with one term" and will bow out because of age and infirmity? Ya right, the RNC will get him transfusions from sorority girls if that's what it takes to keep a Republican incumbent in the White House. Keep dreamin'.
And this, I'm afraid, is as close as Hillary is getting. Nobody is going to forget her scorched-Earth approach to campaigning over the last few months, calling everyone who fails to fall into line a Judas or an Idiot, wallowing in Rove-ian fear tactics.
All the national party will remember about Hillary in 2012 is the animosity and ill-will generated within the party in 2008 ... she'll be even more entrenched in the Senate and they'll all rationalize that it's better to keep her there and utilize her skills than fracture the party with her -- again. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:07:05
Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies
"Of course, the women of Afganistan loved the fact that the US came as well. They can walk around without being beaten and having to wear the burka."
Yeah ... maybe in Karzai's office and at the U.S. Embassy ... but outside Kabul's puppet government enclave, no, not so much. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:30:35
Yeah ... maybe in Karzai's office and at the U.S. Embassy ... but outside Kabul's puppet government enclave, no, not so much. posted 04/21/2008 at 10:30:35
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...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn't Hillary Clinton gracefully concede...
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,...
Moreover, a choice between V.P. and U.S. Senator is hardly "all or nothing". I think it boils down to where Senator Clinton thinks she can achieve more of her personal objectives if she isn't the President, and ultimately I think she'll choose the autonomy and power base of the Senate. posted 05/14/2008 at 05:33:45