Please wait, your request is processed...

Kahawa

Recent comments by this user

Another "The Hillary I Know"

To Grammy and all those Clinton supporters who feel under attack, I would like to remind you that you can't believe everything you read and that most of the candidate bashing that gets into blogs comes (unedited) from people who are fanatic about something or other (me too -- I'm a democracy, free speech and honesty fanatic), and most of the candidate bashing in the MSM is twisted by the bias of the reporter, the source, the editor and the publisher/producer.

I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I wish with all my heart that if Obama wins he will continue to be gracious and build bridges, that no Clinton supporter seriously plans to vote against Clinton's party, and that Clinton goes on to be as strong and capable a senator as she has been to date. I do support Obama, but like many others, I don't like being called an Obamamaniac or Obama fanatic -- any more than you would like being called a Clintonista. This is beneath us all. Grammy, keep hope. We're a pretty good country when it comes to forgiving, forgetting, and pulling together.

God bless you. posted 05/09/2008 at 15:40:30

The Primary Day Ritual

You nailed it. It's not the system, though that's flawed in my opinion, but the outrageous depths to which Clinton sinks in her desperate attempt. She is undermining her own party by being so underhanded, not by continuing her campaign, which is her right. posted 05/07/2008 at 06:56:52

How dare you! That's what I call a spite vote. I'm an independent who used to support all three leading Democratic candidates, and I'm getting really angry with Clinton, whom I used to admire deeply. But I will still vote for her if she gets the nomination. Remember, McCain could actually be worse than Bush -- and he will have the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices (and admires Bush's choices ...). I hope you're just kidding, really. If not, grow up and at least do us the favor of not voting at all. posted 05/07/2008 at 06:53:48

Fox News Lincoln-Douglas Graphic Shows Frederick Douglass

That's true, he did narrowly lose the Illinois Senate seat he was running for. But the publication of the debates (over slavery, by the way) helped propel Lincoln to the presidency posted 04/30/2008 at 06:47:39

Embrace Your Inner Elitist

That means precisely that she is, in effect, lying when she stresses the hardscrabble Scranton connection and pulls the shot and a beer act. She was most definitely relatively privileged, according to her pretty sympathetic biography by Carl Bernstein.

Why you should care is that she pretended to be someone she is not -- they both try that now and again, but her attempts are to me pretty egregious. posted 04/30/2008 at 07:07:44

Barack Obama On Fox News Sunday: Watch Video

I have to get to work, so I didn't take time to watch the interview excerpts you included with the post. However, I can tell you that this was a practically incoherent post, with grammatical and spelling mistakes that made me cringe. I still don't quite get what Linkins was driving at, honestly. Tranlsation, anyone? posted 04/28/2008 at 06:14:08

The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary

Yes, please, deduct the phony votes and add 'em up again! posted 04/23/2008 at 13:18:12

It paid off, didn't it? She still can't win the nomination, no matter how you want to spin it. PS, she also has campaign debt, and he doesn't, so of course he can afford to spend more. I wonder whether she would have spent more if she'd had it .... posted 04/23/2008 at 13:16:03

Not enough to win her the delegates she needed, and not enough to make any difference in the long run. And of course, not as many as were initially predicted would vote for her. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:13:59

"the only point" you conceded is a big one. Neither Michigan nor Florida votes count. Period. If the DNC works something out with those states, okay, but otherwise, counting their votes is like the disgraceful act of the Supreme Court awarding Bush the presidency in 2000.

And of course, this poor guy and you have not done the math anyway. Unless Obama implodes, he's the one, like it or not. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:10:33

Is Hillary's Win a Win?

We democrats and independents will choose Obama over McCain. What the heck new and substantive can the Republicans throw at Obama? Will McCain be as nasty as Hillary? Probably, but maybe this time, having been thoroughly disgusted by the Democratic primary, voters won't buy it! Surely we'll all be sick of bitter-cling-Ayers-Wright and all the rest of that nonsensem... posted 04/23/2008 at 13:27:01

That's okay. He won't have battered congress into submission the way the Bush administration did. He'll have an uphill battle plenty of times, but that's the price of playing by the rules. Whoever is president in 2009 should immediately get the Executive Branch back to its appropriate place as one of three branches of government, not as a monarchy. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:23:16

Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream

Great Column, Tom. I'm right there with your wife. I used to turn off the radio/TV only when Bush spoke. Now I do it when Hillary Clinton speaks. And I used to think I would be as happy to vote for her as for Obama. I have a bone to pick with you, though. You said "progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. " And how exactly do you propose that we send that message? I never gave her money, so that's not going to help. I will have to vote for her if nominated because at least she's not John McCain. I don't happen to write a blog, though I do post replies. What would you have me do??? posted 04/23/2008 at 07:40:49

Obama Improving Among Whites And Seniors, Holding Among Jews

In my book (I'm white, female, feminist and over 50) a woman who votes for a woman just because she is a woman is sexist, and a black person who votes for a black person just because he is black is racist. It's perfectly normal and understandable for people to be more comfortable voting for candidates who belong to their own affinity group, but 1) that had better not be the only reason, and 2) we need to widen our sense of affinity. To me Obama is a member of my affinity group for many reasons. So is Clinton. Not so much McCain (can't think of a thing I agree with him on except for some statements he made a long time ago and then reversed). Voting only for your race/gender is not only racist/sexist, but also dangerously ill-informed. Think of all those old white guys who made such terrible presidents... posted 04/23/2008 at 07:22:57

Thoughts on Pennsylvania, Clinton and Obama from a "Realisticrat"

So you're actually a McCain supporter? Where have you been the last few months, as he's inexorably moved to the far right? Why did you support Clinton in the first place if you think McCain would be better than Obama? Are you all there? I support Obama, and I have the opposite point of view to yours when it comes to clinton, but damned if I want another 4 years of Bush's kind of government! I'm not even a Democrat, but I'm voting Democrat no matter what, because I am not a right-wing nut. posted 04/23/2008 at 07:59:41

Run, Hillary, Run. Ralph, Too.

To me the point is that the more the candidates jab at each other, the more potential fuel they give to the Republicans. I'm particularly troubled by this business of Obama and Clinton supporters saying they would vote for McCain if their chosen candidate is not nominated. I was glad to see a statement the other day by Clinton, on this issue of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope to hear both candidates speak to this repeatedly. But still, we have two strong, talented candidates, fighting a tough campaign and unfortunately slinging far more mud than they should. Any mud that sticks could be a handicap in November. posted 03/28/2008 at 05:22:53

Reverend Wright: Raw and Un-Cut

Just wondering, Steve, why you don't say you listened to his sermons yourself. Did you? posted 03/28/2008 at 05:11:58

Three Myths About the Democratic Race

I'm glad to see that you don't point out as "myth" the undeniable fact that Hillary Clinton is running a far more divisive campaign ... I used to feel very happy that if my chosen candidate (no, not my idol, not a deity) Obama did not win, I thought Clinton would do a good job as president. I no longer think so. Dirty politics I don't want. Unfortunately, I'll have to vote for her if she is nominated, but it will be the latest in my string of votes against conservative Republicans. Damn it, I haven't had a chance to vote for someone I really liked since McGovern! PS I'm from Massachusetts, in one of the 4 counties that went for Obama in the primaries. At least the whole state was right about McGovern .... posted 03/25/2008 at 09:09:54

Is the Media's Pursuit of Horserace Coverage the Reason Sen. Clinton is Still Considered a Viable Contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

Speaking as an Independent who is so happy to be supporting a candidate for a change instead of voting against a candidate as I've done for so many years, I agree with you completely. The longer she stays in the race, the more harm Clinton is doing to the Democrats' chances in the election. I shudder at the thought of 4 more years of McBush, 4 more years of Republican Supreme Court nominees, 4 more years of ignoring the will of the American people. After all, there's an all-too-significant bloc of Democrats and Independents who will vote for McCain out of spite if their chosen candidate does not win. Do we really want that? The way to overcome is to pull together and take the remaining time to show some unity and support of the Democratic candidate. posted 03/23/2008 at 09:14:52

Another Bill Clinton Moment On The Campaign Trail

Curses, too optimistic again ... thanks for the clarification! posted 03/22/2008 at 09:47:05

Speaking as an Obama supporter who has much respect for both Hillary and Bill Clinton, I this this needs clarification. The sentence itself suggests a wish I share with others: wouldn't it be nice to have a campaign without mudslinging? Was the quoted sentence preceded or followed by other statements that showed he was referring to McCain and Clinton? Perhaps I ought to be cynical and assume so, but I prefer to be optimistic and give the guy the benefit of the doubt! What paranoia this primary campaign has provoked among us -- it's very sad. posted 03/21/2008 at 19:02:27

The 100 Years War

I think you mean "facetious." Or did you mean "artificially created or developed," as my dictionary defines factitious. In my field (health care) factitious injuries are those inflicted on the patient by himself.

Thanks for the giggle. posted 03/22/2008 at 09:55:06

John Adams: God Damn America

And don't neglect this posting on huffington: www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html

posted 03/22/2008 at 09:39:24

Fans of this user

This user doesn't have any fans yet!

Log in to become a fan of this user.

Fan of

This user isn't a fan of anybody yet!

Bloggers I Like