May 13, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
Nonamnesiac
Recent comments by this user
Reid Rebuffs Idea Of Senate Majority Leader Clinton
Since Paul Wellstone expired prematurely, there has not been a single US Democratic Senator with any real courage to replace Reid. Hillary would at best just be more of the same. Probably Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer would be closest to a Senate Majority Leader who might make the Democrats a truly effective force for progressive change in the Senate, Boxer more so than Feingold. Feingold has been good on many issues, but has caved in many times also. Failing to filibuster the nomination of torturer, lawless Mukasey for Attorney General comes to mind with respect to both Feingold and Boxer, but there are other instances of collaboration on Feingold's part too. posted 05/13/2008 at 02:24:16
Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
I did not mean to minimize his brilliance and talent. I was not saying Creamer's stated reasons were not true. I was saying he left out what I considered to be the most important reasons that she was vulnerable, even to a politician as brilliant and talented as Obama. posted 05/13/2008 at 02:03:41
Although the ten reasons stated in Robert Creamer's post were all reasons Hillary lost, he left out the main reasons she will not be the Democratic nominee. She lost because she voted to invade Iraq, defended that vote until it was no longer politically feasible for her to do so and then lied about the reasons she voted to invade.
The second reason she lost is she was exposed numerous times of being an outright liar on major important matters.
It was hard for her to lose this nomination and her success in doing so given all she had going for her when it started -- the Clinton machine, a relatively unknown opponent, media acceptance and trumeting of her inevitability for a year -- shows she is unqualified to be President. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:42:08
The second reason she lost is she was exposed numerous times of being an outright liar on major important matters.
It was hard for her to lose this nomination and her success in doing so given all she had going for her when it started -- the Clinton machine, a relatively unknown opponent, media acceptance and trumeting of her inevitability for a year -- shows she is unqualified to be President. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:42:08
New Group With Clinton Ties Pushes A 'Dream Ticket'
Trying to look at it objectively, I don't see what she brings to Obama. She says that Whites won't vote for him for President but will vote for her. But that doesn't mean they'd vote for him for President if she's the VP, and the same logic that she says shows hard working white workers wouldn't vote for him for President because he's Black would hold even if she were the number 2 on his ticket.
It's been my belief all along that whether Obama or Hillary won, the VP pick would be Jim Webb, or, possibly Marc Warner (but not likely). I still think that Webb will be Obama's VP pick, unless there's something in Webb's closet that has not surfaced. posted 05/11/2008 at 18:44:53
It's been my belief all along that whether Obama or Hillary won, the VP pick would be Jim Webb, or, possibly Marc Warner (but not likely). I still think that Webb will be Obama's VP pick, unless there's something in Webb's closet that has not surfaced. posted 05/11/2008 at 18:44:53
Clinton goes from inevitable nominee to on the ropes
Next time Hillary shouldn't vote to invade Iraq against the overwhelming intelligence that all informed people knew at the time proved that Saddam had no WMDs (Blix), was an enemy of al Qaeda (bin Laden had called Saddam an infidel many times) and that removing him would strengthen Iran (articles and books by Daddy Bush, Cheney, Powell and others). Secondly, she shouldn't have lied about it and should have admitted her vote was based on bad judgment, not faulty intelligence and was in error.
After all is said and done, there are thousands of young Americans and Iraqis killed and maimed, against the interests of the United States, and she voted for it, defended it and lied about why she did what she did. She lacked and lacks the judgment to be President or even Senator given her contribution to this debacle. posted 05/11/2008 at 16:41:44
After all is said and done, there are thousands of young Americans and Iraqis killed and maimed, against the interests of the United States, and she voted for it, defended it and lied about why she did what she did. She lacked and lacks the judgment to be President or even Senator given her contribution to this debacle. posted 05/11/2008 at 16:41:44
Clinton Diehards Outraged By Calls To Drop Out
I agreed with you right until the remarks she made about Obama being unable to get "hard working" White votes. I believed the campaign should play itself out and have opposed the screams for her to end her campaign. I'm not emotional about Obama. I dislike his opposition to single payer, universal health care. I dislike his position on refusing to commit to immediately, safely withdrawing all US troops and contractors from Iraq. I dislike his actual (as opposed to his rhetorical) position on NAFTA and free trade -- he supports unbridled free trade. Just a couple of months ago he supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement which is a clone of NAFTA with respect to environmental and labor protections.
Hillary has run much of her campaign in the "OJ Multiple Meaning Zone" -- the part of the public discourse where Blacks and Whites disagree regarding what's racist and what's not. However in this instance, she has been outright racist and anyone still supporting her after those comments is racist in my opinion. posted 05/11/2008 at 15:27:12
Hillary has run much of her campaign in the "OJ Multiple Meaning Zone" -- the part of the public discourse where Blacks and Whites disagree regarding what's racist and what's not. However in this instance, she has been outright racist and anyone still supporting her after those comments is racist in my opinion. posted 05/11/2008 at 15:27:12
I disagree with you. The Dems don't need, and will not get, the moron, racist Dixiecrat vote, some of whom are supporting Hillary over Obama because of her racist message coupled with a hostile response to the Republican pro-wealthy, anti working class and poor message. The Dems do need, and in November will get, the Reagan Democrat vote, even though they are currently supporting Hillary because of her racist message. Reagan Dems have learned their lessons. They would rather vote for a racist Democrat over anyone, but would select a non-racist Democrat over a racist, anti working class, anti-poor warmongerer like McCain.
And the __ist I am -- realist. Another ___ist -- unionist. I've spent 45 years organizing workers in the North and in the South as part of the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the peace movement. posted 05/11/2008 at 15:17:14
And the __ist I am -- realist. Another ___ist -- unionist. I've spent 45 years organizing workers in the North and in the South as part of the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the peace movement. posted 05/11/2008 at 15:17:14
Another difference between moron Dixiecrats and Reagan Democrats is Reagan Democrats are solidly anti-war, more so than the Hillary Clintons of the world, because although they fought patriotically in the Vietnam War, they learned such wars simply waste lives and limbs while harming the U.S. Although they are willing to fight in wars in the interests of the US, they are for immediate, safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, much quicker than the pundits and pols call for, although their poll responses are guarded. Those people will vote Obama over McCain even though they respect McCain for his service, because they know McCain's a warmongerer. They know (better than most) that no possible outcome in Iraq is worth one more American life or limb or any US treasure. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me -- and they know they were fooled once on Vietnam.
Dixiecrats will simply support their kids being killed and maimed in any war the President declares, no matter how clear it is that the war is being fought against the interests of the US and in the interests of the enemies of the US. The Dixiecrats would vote for warmongerer McCain even if the race issue wasn't there. Warmongering is icing on the racist McCain cake. posted 05/11/2008 at 13:55:00
Dixiecrats will simply support their kids being killed and maimed in any war the President declares, no matter how clear it is that the war is being fought against the interests of the US and in the interests of the enemies of the US. The Dixiecrats would vote for warmongerer McCain even if the race issue wasn't there. Warmongering is icing on the racist McCain cake. posted 05/11/2008 at 13:55:00
The only people who can be supporting Hillary now are racists who would not have voted for Obama anyway. I know many Whites excuse their racism by saying they are not racist while always taking racist positions. That's the Hillary base, and it appears, hard core supporters among the politically knowledgeable also. Her remarks about "hard working" Whites were 100% racist and she has reaffirmed those remarks rather than publicly apologized. All pundits, the McAulieffes, Hillary Rosens, etc. who continue to support her are also racists, as they should have publicly told her to apologize and endosred Obama when she refused to do so.
As opposed to the stupid, useless Dixiecrats -- racist, barbaric, poor morons who vote Republican because of the Civil Rights Movement even though Republicans make them poorer and push wars that kill and maim their kids -- Reagan Democrats will, reluctantly, in the end, vote for Obama because they are more committed to surviving economically than they are racist and will overcome their racist instincts because McCain's economic policies will simply continue the Reagan/Bush 1 and Bush 2 economic war on them.
As for the Dixiecrats, screw them. Dems won't get them until Dixiecrats start voting for higher taxes to provide quality education to their kids. With some exceptions, that's not happening yet. posted 05/11/2008 at 13:26:17
As opposed to the stupid, useless Dixiecrats -- racist, barbaric, poor morons who vote Republican because of the Civil Rights Movement even though Republicans make them poorer and push wars that kill and maim their kids -- Reagan Democrats will, reluctantly, in the end, vote for Obama because they are more committed to surviving economically than they are racist and will overcome their racist instincts because McCain's economic policies will simply continue the Reagan/Bush 1 and Bush 2 economic war on them.
As for the Dixiecrats, screw them. Dems won't get them until Dixiecrats start voting for higher taxes to provide quality education to their kids. With some exceptions, that's not happening yet. posted 05/11/2008 at 13:26:17
"Saturday Night Live's" Message From Hillary Clinton: "I Have No Ethical Standards" (VIDEO)
SNL is doing what Terry McAuliffe, Steph, Carville, Begala, Hillary Rosen and the other Dem heavyweights should be doing. Hillary's comments were obviously and overtly racist. All of her most ardent supporters should have publicly demanded her to publicly apologize and those ardent supporters should endorse Obama publicly if she refused to apologize. Instead she and Bill have reaffirmed those racist remarks.
SNL has done something about it with this clip. It's obvious SNL stepped up to the plate as a result of Hillary's overt racism. The rest must do so also or they are enabling racism. This must happen now, not after the primaries, or before the Convention. posted 05/11/2008 at 14:11:18
SNL has done something about it with this clip. It's obvious SNL stepped up to the plate as a result of Hillary's overt racism. The rest must do so also or they are enabling racism. This must happen now, not after the primaries, or before the Convention. posted 05/11/2008 at 14:11:18
McCain to Me in 1999: Bush "As Dumb as a Stump"
McCain calling Bush dumb is the pot calling the kettle black. posted 05/10/2008 at 05:58:45
Clinton PowerPoint Make Her Case To Uncommitted Superdelegates
She's using elitist graphics and "expert" analysis by pulling out a power point presentation. Annie Oakley should pull out her .45 instead -- 'cause that's how White workers would do it -- in Hillary's racist fantasy world. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:16:00
Bob Graham: Clinton War Vote Was Anchor Of Her Campaign
Graham is right, but he did not go far enough. Hillary might have been able to live down the vote, but she continually lied to justify the vote. She also articulated a cowboy, militarist mentality in dealing with the world -- constantly making unnecessary personal attacks on leaders like Putin and Chavez even though she would have to deal with both if she won, voting for the barbaric, stupid Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, responding to a stupid hypothetical by threatening to "obliterate" Iran -- and doing a "sniper fire" by acting as if she based her Iraq vote on the intelligence at the time. The last one is a lose-lose for her. As every informed person knows now and knew then the credible intelligence at the time showed Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of al Qaeda, and that removing him would cause a power vacuum that could be calamitious. If she voted for invasion based on the intentionally cherry-picked, lying intelligence provided by Bush, she demonstrated she lacks the analytical skills and ability to separate the when from the chaff when authorizing war. If she didn't believe the intelligence and knew what everyone else knew at the time, then her vote demonstrated she is willing to kill and maim our families for her own careerist objectives against the interests of the US.
Either way, she lacks the judgment to be President, even if she would have left Reverend Wright's church. posted 05/10/2008 at 06:16:01
Either way, she lacks the judgment to be President, even if she would have left Reverend Wright's church. posted 05/10/2008 at 06:16:01
Clinton Supporters Send Last-Ditch Obama Attack Emails To Supers
You're darn right that's where I'm coming from. Let the Dixiecrats vote Republicans. Not that it matters as opposing racism must be done on principle, but the Dems will get more votes by punishing racism than by embracing it directly or indirectly. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:14:34
Although we obviously agree on much more than we disagree, I've been a proponent of letting the process play out to the end -- until this. She must be directly rejected and punished for these racist remarks and the superdelegates, as "supers" have more of a responsibility to do it than others in the Democratic Party. They should convene, renounce those comments directly, endorse Obama and ask her to apologize publicly for having said those things. They should tell her that if she doesn't apologize, she'll go the way of Trent Lott when he praised Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, and won't have much of a role in the Senate either.
They should not wait, as it looks as if they are willing to be calculating about racism. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:00:29
They should not wait, as it looks as if they are willing to be calculating about racism. posted 05/10/2008 at 11:00:29
You're damn right that's where I'm coming from. Let the Repubs and the Nazis have the dixiecrat vote. posted 05/10/2008 at 10:52:43
Any superdelegate who has not endorsed Obama after Bill's and Hillary's despicable racist remarks about "hard working" White workers being unwilling to vote for Obama is another day that superdelegate is embracing a personal and Democratic Party appearance of tolerating racism. The Clintons have been tailoring a subtle racist message for their whole campaign, attempting to paint Obama as if he is in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton mode. They have mastered the area of public discourse where Whites believe something is neutral while Blacks believe it to be racist and have been playing to that area since they realized Hillary's "inevitability" might need some strengthening.
With Hillary's and Bill's outright racist assertion regarding Barack's inability to get "hard working" white worker votes, they have crossed that line. Everyone but hard core racists like Pat Buchanan, Moron Joe and his adoring little sister Mika Zbig know the Clintons are playing the racism card now. Given that Barack has won more pledged delegates under the System to which both parties agreed and nothing can change that, even the Clintons attempts to get rewarded for breaking the rules to which they agreed re MI and FL, superdelegates must endorse NOW to punish her racism. posted 05/10/2008 at 09:43:19
With Hillary's and Bill's outright racist assertion regarding Barack's inability to get "hard working" white worker votes, they have crossed that line. Everyone but hard core racists like Pat Buchanan, Moron Joe and his adoring little sister Mika Zbig know the Clintons are playing the racism card now. Given that Barack has won more pledged delegates under the System to which both parties agreed and nothing can change that, even the Clintons attempts to get rewarded for breaking the rules to which they agreed re MI and FL, superdelegates must endorse NOW to punish her racism. posted 05/10/2008 at 09:43:19
Bill Clinton Switches to Obama
I read a different story. I thought he came out against Hillary, not that he supported Obama. I think he's supporting Ron Paul. posted 05/09/2008 at 11:29:19
The Military Analyst Scandal Dies -- Even on NPR?
Congress has the option of permitting proven high crimes and misdemeanors to be committed by not moving impeachment. It has regularly collaborated in Bush's and Cheney's proven high crimes and misdemeanors and refused to move impeachment. posted 05/10/2008 at 05:54:40
The failure of the Democratically controlled Congress to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney for their already proven acts of high crimes and misdemeanors is the reason none of these stories dominate the corporate owned media for very long (unless it's coverage like Reverend Wright).
The media did their job and covered the paid, lying coverage of Iraq by retired military officers. So long as the Democrats collaborate in these high crimes and misdemeanors by not bringing the Articles of Impeachment and removing criminals Bush and Cheney, the media can do no more.
If you want to blame people, blame those who have the authority to hold Bush and Cheney accountable and have collaborated in those high crimes and misdemeanors instead -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. posted 05/09/2008 at 09:05:16
The media did their job and covered the paid, lying coverage of Iraq by retired military officers. So long as the Democrats collaborate in these high crimes and misdemeanors by not bringing the Articles of Impeachment and removing criminals Bush and Cheney, the media can do no more.
If you want to blame people, blame those who have the authority to hold Bush and Cheney accountable and have collaborated in those high crimes and misdemeanors instead -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress. posted 05/09/2008 at 09:05:16
Study: "Daily Show" Very Similar To "O'Reilly Factor"
This "study" is just an effort by the MSM to degrade a show far superior to the drones, fools, liars, boy toys and hotties that comprise MSM news. Stewart (and Colbert) are comedic geniuses. Russert, Matthews, Gibson, Steph, Moron Joe, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, etc. -- all of them except for Keith Olbermann -- are talentless servants of the corporations that own them, willing to knowingly lie to serve the war policies of the Administration by cheerleading us into the war and knowingly lie to keep us in the war by pushing the fiction that it would be "irresponsible" for immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq.
They even feature Nazi Pat Buchanan whose newest WWII book reaffirms the assertions made in his old WWII book that the US fought on the wrong side during WWII.
This "study" shows the jealousy, stupidity and inaccuracy of Jon Stewart's lessers -- the media and the puditocracy. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:06:02
They even feature Nazi Pat Buchanan whose newest WWII book reaffirms the assertions made in his old WWII book that the US fought on the wrong side during WWII.
This "study" shows the jealousy, stupidity and inaccuracy of Jon Stewart's lessers -- the media and the puditocracy. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:06:02
Clinton: Obama Not Winning Over "Hard-Working Americans, White Americans"
It is time for Hillary to be thrown under the bus by her supporters and by the Democratic Party. Her campaign has long been playing the race card, carefully tailoring it so that Whites would think her actions weren't racist even though Blacks fully understood the Clintons were attempting to paint Obama as a modern day Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton.
Her supporters defended her use of the race card and did what many Whites do -- make a decision that what Blacks find racist really is not racist. But this time, she went too far. Her remarks are outright racist and outright inaccurate.
Her supporters must demand that she publicly apologize for these remarks or they have simply decided to become allies in overt racism on her part. posted 05/09/2008 at 01:38:12
Her supporters defended her use of the race card and did what many Whites do -- make a decision that what Blacks find racist really is not racist. But this time, she went too far. Her remarks are outright racist and outright inaccurate.
Her supporters must demand that she publicly apologize for these remarks or they have simply decided to become allies in overt racism on her part. posted 05/09/2008 at 01:38:12
Toni Morrison On Calling Bill Clinton The First Black President And Endorsing Obama
People understood why Ms. Morrison called Clinton the First Black President. The Clintons themselves chose to misrepresent the context of the remark in order to make a huge political gain from a highly decent action on Ms. Morrison's part. Typical cynical Clinton dishonesty. posted 05/08/2008 at 09:44:30
Another "The Hillary I Know"
Hillary's and Bill's remarks regarding Obama's so-called inability to get "hard working" White working class voters have crossed the line. Until now racist Bill and Hillary Clinton were walking the tightrope, playing the race card subtly by pushing issues that many Whites do not perceive as racist even though they are perceived as obviously racist by Blacks. Their efforts to paint Obama as another Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton falls into the kinds of statements of which I speak.
However these latest comments in 2008 are just outright racist, no ifs, ands or buts. I watched Nazi Pat Buchanan (his latest WWII book reaffirms the last WWII book he wrote asserting that the US fought on the wrong side during WWII) gleefully argue, as advice to the Democratic Party on Moron Joe under the clueless, racist interrogation of Mika Zbig, that Hillary's arguments were accurate and should be made.
It's up to the Hillary Rosen's of the world to tell the Clintons publicly to shut their racist mouths or you will all publicly endorse Obama due to their racism. If you don't take a step that strong, you yourself are an enabler of racism. We don't need to retreat to the days of Dixiecrat thinking influencing the Democratic Party. posted 05/09/2008 at 08:02:11
However these latest comments in 2008 are just outright racist, no ifs, ands or buts. I watched Nazi Pat Buchanan (his latest WWII book reaffirms the last WWII book he wrote asserting that the US fought on the wrong side during WWII) gleefully argue, as advice to the Democratic Party on Moron Joe under the clueless, racist interrogation of Mika Zbig, that Hillary's arguments were accurate and should be made.
It's up to the Hillary Rosen's of the world to tell the Clintons publicly to shut their racist mouths or you will all publicly endorse Obama due to their racism. If you don't take a step that strong, you yourself are an enabler of racism. We don't need to retreat to the days of Dixiecrat thinking influencing the Democratic Party. posted 05/09/2008 at 08:02:11
Race Is All the Clintons Have Left
It was amazing over the past couple of weeks to watch Barnicle, David Gregory, Moron Joe, Nazi Pat Buchanan (his latest book expands his last WWII book contention that the US fought on the wrong side during WWII) and most of the rest of the media perform the equivalent of political cunnilungus for Hillary, loudly screaming over those who challenged her pandering as "elitists" and claiming that Obama was on the ropes and was in danger of losing the nomination. Despite 2 long weeks of this media cunnilungus for Hillary, Obama knocked her out yesterday.
The most amusing portion of it is that it was Bill's and Hillary's racism that ultimately caused her fall. Although most media Whties did not realize that Bill's Jesse Jackson comments and Hillary's reference to Obama as MLK to her effectiveness as LBJ was a racist attempt to make him the Black candidate, the Black electorate recognized it. So despite the fact that many North Carolina Black preachers loudly supported Hillary in the beginning, the Black electorate ignored their pastors preachings (as Obama ignored Reverend Wright's preachings) and voted for Obama almost to a person. They would not have voted for him to near unanimity had the Clintons not played the race card. The Black electorate got even for her racism, while she went for her shot-and-beer. posted 05/07/2008 at 16:15:07
The most amusing portion of it is that it was Bill's and Hillary's racism that ultimately caused her fall. Although most media Whties did not realize that Bill's Jesse Jackson comments and Hillary's reference to Obama as MLK to her effectiveness as LBJ was a racist attempt to make him the Black candidate, the Black electorate recognized it. So despite the fact that many North Carolina Black preachers loudly supported Hillary in the beginning, the Black electorate ignored their pastors preachings (as Obama ignored Reverend Wright's preachings) and voted for Obama almost to a person. They would not have voted for him to near unanimity had the Clintons not played the race card. The Black electorate got even for her racism, while she went for her shot-and-beer. posted 05/07/2008 at 16:15:07
Tuesday's Biggest Loser: Tim Russert (And All The Other TV Blowhards)
I understand that the networks and the cable media -- all of them -- have united and are putting out a fall schedule for prime time, to be broadcast on all of them at once -- The Reverend Wright Hours of Power. The first episode will be on Labor Day and it will go between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. every day, including Saturdays and Sundays.
There will be several versions -- the Hours of Power featuring Reverend Wright's sermons -- the Reverend Wright docudrama which reveals the innermost secrets of Reverend Wright's relationship with the Obamas' -- a game show and a sitcom both still being developed and a reality show called God Damn America with Wright's sermon playing in the background and a picture of Wright and Obama shaking hands as the graphic. The season ends the day after election day.
The media is spinning the shows as an effort to show the many-sides of complex issues in a sensitive, but humorous, light.
Hillary is doing a cameo, talking about her deep understanding, based on her "Little House on the Prairie" roots at Ivy League colleges and law school and private high schools, of hard working white workers and how they won't vote for one of "them". posted 05/09/2008 at 01:26:59
There will be several versions -- the Hours of Power featuring Reverend Wright's sermons -- the Reverend Wright docudrama which reveals the innermost secrets of Reverend Wright's relationship with the Obamas' -- a game show and a sitcom both still being developed and a reality show called God Damn America with Wright's sermon playing in the background and a picture of Wright and Obama shaking hands as the graphic. The season ends the day after election day.
The media is spinning the shows as an effort to show the many-sides of complex issues in a sensitive, but humorous, light.
Hillary is doing a cameo, talking about her deep understanding, based on her "Little House on the Prairie" roots at Ivy League colleges and law school and private high schools, of hard working white workers and how they won't vote for one of "them". posted 05/09/2008 at 01:26:59
Hillary Will Drop Out by June 15
They'll be able to afford that from the suspension of the gas tax she'll get passed as Senate Majority Leader. posted 05/07/2008 at 15:20:52
Who's going to dismantle OPEC if she drops out? posted 05/07/2008 at 13:52:22
After the Primaries, A United Progressive America
The United Democratic Party of Barack Obama opposes single-payer, universal health care, supports NAFTA-like trade agreements (he just supported the labor-opposed Peru Free Trade Agreement a couple of months ago) and opposes immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq, claiming we must keep an indefinite number of troops there for an undefined period of time guaranteeing more killings and maimings to advance the interests of Iran against US interests.
I agree most Democrats buy the above positions. But there are large numbers of progressives who don't and will not support Obama as a result -- and we don't care if some two-bit Nader-baiting Democratic Party sycophant screams at us while s/he votes to support candidates who continue killing and maiming our young and Iraqis because that candidate has a "D" label instead of an "R" label.
In this world of inaccurate Conventional Wisdom (CW), where so-called players think they can intimidate or ignore dissenters into silence or non-existence, there will be a much larger number of voters supporting McKinney or Nader in the fall than CW predicts.
Out now safely or don't expect our votes. You want me to vote to kill or maim some of my family against the interests of the United States by voting "D" or "R". I ain't gonna do it nor will millions of others like me. posted 05/08/2008 at 10:15:28
I agree most Democrats buy the above positions. But there are large numbers of progressives who don't and will not support Obama as a result -- and we don't care if some two-bit Nader-baiting Democratic Party sycophant screams at us while s/he votes to support candidates who continue killing and maiming our young and Iraqis because that candidate has a "D" label instead of an "R" label.
In this world of inaccurate Conventional Wisdom (CW), where so-called players think they can intimidate or ignore dissenters into silence or non-existence, there will be a much larger number of voters supporting McKinney or Nader in the fall than CW predicts.
Out now safely or don't expect our votes. You want me to vote to kill or maim some of my family against the interests of the United States by voting "D" or "R". I ain't gonna do it nor will millions of others like me. posted 05/08/2008 at 10:15:28
North Carolina Superdelegate Endorses Hillary Clinton
Shuler doesn't count. He's not really a Democrat. He's a Bushocrat. posted 05/07/2008 at 13:55:09
Our New Foreign Policy: Blame Iran
Although I don't believe the figures that are put forward by the government, prior to the surge about 20 US troops were being killed per week. Since the surge we're losing 10 or less per week.
Obviously I believe we must immediately, safely withdraw all US troops and contractors. But when I look at the arguments McCain will launch at Obama or Clinton based on their plans to keep reduced troops in Iraq indefinitely, he'll say that fewer troops caused higher US casualties and will be able to back it up with the numbers the administration has been putting out.
We just have to get out all of our troops now, rapidly. posted 05/08/2008 at 09:36:09
Obviously I believe we must immediately, safely withdraw all US troops and contractors. But when I look at the arguments McCain will launch at Obama or Clinton based on their plans to keep reduced troops in Iraq indefinitely, he'll say that fewer troops caused higher US casualties and will be able to back it up with the numbers the administration has been putting out.
We just have to get out all of our troops now, rapidly. posted 05/08/2008 at 09:36:09
The surge worked for the Iranians. They were the beneficiaries. As a citizen you shouldn't be conned by those who say "I was against it, but now we have to stay or there will be a calamity of biblical proportions. As a cfitizen you must support immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors within six weeks, the same amount of time it took us to march in.
Once we're out, it's in the interests of those in the region to calm it down and sell oil. McCain and the right will successfully argue that fewer US troops (both Hillary's and Obama's plan) means greater US casualties. The surge reduced US casualties.
Only getting out in a planned, orderly, safe manner now ends this. This is not like Vietnam and it need not look like a rout. The insurgents probably will fire nary a shot, as we have the 6th Fleet right off the cost to provide protection and there's no equivalent to the Soviet bloc supporting the insurgents, as they were in Vietnam. posted 05/08/2008 at 07:53:02
Once we're out, it's in the interests of those in the region to calm it down and sell oil. McCain and the right will successfully argue that fewer US troops (both Hillary's and Obama's plan) means greater US casualties. The surge reduced US casualties.
Only getting out in a planned, orderly, safe manner now ends this. This is not like Vietnam and it need not look like a rout. The insurgents probably will fire nary a shot, as we have the 6th Fleet right off the cost to provide protection and there's no equivalent to the Soviet bloc supporting the insurgents, as they were in Vietnam. posted 05/08/2008 at 07:53:02
The surge worked. Ahmadinejad receives a hero's welcome in Baghdad by thousands upon thousands of Iraqis -- and doesn't have to sneak into the Green Zone in the dead of night to be secure like our leaders do. Our chosen elected leader of Iraq (the one we chose who took over after we threw out our first chosen elected leader of Iraq) denies US claims that Iran is arming militia and warns us not to include Iraq in our planned war against Iran, as what we are accusing Iran of is not true. The presumptive US Republican Presidential candidate can't even visit the Iraqi market he visited last year with 100 armed-to-the-teeth body armored US troops and several helicopters overhead because the market is under the control of an Iraqi militia this year and too dangerous for him to go to.
The surge worked because we turned over areas we contested a year ago to the militias who controlled them.
As the surge worked, and we know that Iran and the Iraqi government we chose are allied and that the most powerful Iraqi militias also support Iran, we can immediately, safely withdraw and Iraq will be secure, under Iran's influence because of our invasion. And now Congress is going to appropriate more money to this debacle? Bush and the Democratic Congress have sacrficed American lives and limbs to make Iran strong to the detriment of US interests. posted 05/08/2008 at 06:29:26
The surge worked because we turned over areas we contested a year ago to the militias who controlled them.
As the surge worked, and we know that Iran and the Iraqi government we chose are allied and that the most powerful Iraqi militias also support Iran, we can immediately, safely withdraw and Iraq will be secure, under Iran's influence because of our invasion. And now Congress is going to appropriate more money to this debacle? Bush and the Democratic Congress have sacrficed American lives and limbs to make Iran strong to the detriment of US interests. posted 05/08/2008 at 06:29:26
Chris Matthews Admits: MSNBC Bosses Were "Basically Pro-War"
They still are. Once their cheerleading for war based on Administration arguments they knew were lies caused the quagmire we're in now, they simply changed their argument to be that "even though we oppose the war, we cannot leave irresponsibly and must remain indefinitely." And they sold that lying BS to most of the antiwar movement and even to Obama and Clinton.
We need to immediately, safely withdraw all US troops and contractors. It took us 6 weeks to march in against an actual army and government. We can get out within 6 weeks with nary a casualty. This is not Vietnam. There is no North Vietnamese army backed by Soviet bloc arms and China on the border of North Vietnam. The insurgents have no such ability to inflict casualties if we're leaving, as we have the Sixth Fleet right off of Iraq's coast.
McCain and the right will successfully argue that if we follow Clinton's and Obama's plan (they both want to keep troops in Iraq at reduced levels) US casualties will increase, as we had fewer troops in there until the surge and had greater US casualties. Only by getting out will there be peace and security.
As a result of Bush, the Democrats, the media and stupid anti-war people opposed to immediate, safe withdrawal, every US life and limb lost in Iraq has made Iran stronger and the US weaker. Every day we're there keeps that up. posted 05/08/2008 at 08:09:37
We need to immediately, safely withdraw all US troops and contractors. It took us 6 weeks to march in against an actual army and government. We can get out within 6 weeks with nary a casualty. This is not Vietnam. There is no North Vietnamese army backed by Soviet bloc arms and China on the border of North Vietnam. The insurgents have no such ability to inflict casualties if we're leaving, as we have the Sixth Fleet right off of Iraq's coast.
McCain and the right will successfully argue that if we follow Clinton's and Obama's plan (they both want to keep troops in Iraq at reduced levels) US casualties will increase, as we had fewer troops in there until the surge and had greater US casualties. Only by getting out will there be peace and security.
As a result of Bush, the Democrats, the media and stupid anti-war people opposed to immediate, safe withdrawal, every US life and limb lost in Iraq has made Iran stronger and the US weaker. Every day we're there keeps that up. posted 05/08/2008 at 08:09:37
Paul Krugman: Obama Ad Distorts My Column, He Should Retract It
I know who Berlusconi is. I was in Italy just prior to the invasion of Iraq when over a million people in Rome, Naples, Milan were in the streets opposing the invasion that Berlusconi supported. The war was one of the reason Pradi defeated him. Then the socialists were defeated.
But a right wing government in any of the Western European countries -- even Britain -- does not change it from a social democracy. The debate is at the edges of it -- no one ever says let's not have single payer health care or numerous other pro-worker benefits. And believe me, the whole crowd of neo-liberal and supply side economists who are the architects of the US ecnoomy are not even part of the discussion regarding whether to supplant social democracy with neo-liberalism or supply side theory as the main system. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:54:31
But a right wing government in any of the Western European countries -- even Britain -- does not change it from a social democracy. The debate is at the edges of it -- no one ever says let's not have single payer health care or numerous other pro-worker benefits. And believe me, the whole crowd of neo-liberal and supply side economists who are the architects of the US ecnoomy are not even part of the discussion regarding whether to supplant social democracy with neo-liberalism or supply side theory as the main system. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:54:31
I've been to Italy many times, as my son-in--law was stationed there and that's how I got to see my grandkids and daughter. They have free health care and numerous other benefits superior to their US counterparts. Check the UN statistics for Italian workers (or nearly all of the other Western European democracies) vs. the US statistics. In nearly all of the Western European democracies workers live longer and are healthier than their US counterparts and infant mortality is lower than the US. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:52:28
Her sensitivity to the working class and how her reforms will help is the "it" to which I refer. The bulk of US economists are either neo-liberals or supply-siders in the US. Even Keynsian economics is unpopular now.
I'm anti-Hillary. But I do understand the sentiments she is successfully manipulating among working people. Obama doesn't seem to understand it at all. He needs to really change that if he wants to win in November, after the superdelegates do what they have to do and give him the added delegate votes to get the nomination. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:46:50
I'm anti-Hillary. But I do understand the sentiments she is successfully manipulating among working people. Obama doesn't seem to understand it at all. He needs to really change that if he wants to win in November, after the superdelegates do what they have to do and give him the added delegate votes to get the nomination. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:46:50
No one believes those jobs would be lost if the gas tax was suspended for 3 months. Everyone believes the economists are simply paid advocates of the wealthy and will only come up with arguments against anything that might possibly help working people.
The neo-liberal economistocracy IS full of feces. There are other models that provide better economic conditions for the vast majority of the people than the US model. Europe and Canada both provide better living conditions for working people than the US does according to UN statistics.
The US economy was more social democratic while the baby boomers were young and they are looking for that again. As they realize it's not going to happen, they simply want to believe that even a minor reform is at least a look in their direction. It's not "dumbing up", it's desperation.
And Obama doesn't get it. He really is a product of Ivy League thinking and has forgotten where he came from, or he would at least show some sensitivity. Hillary just lies about it, but shows verbal sensitivity, even though everyone knows she's lying. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:12:03
The neo-liberal economistocracy IS full of feces. There are other models that provide better economic conditions for the vast majority of the people than the US model. Europe and Canada both provide better living conditions for working people than the US does according to UN statistics.
The US economy was more social democratic while the baby boomers were young and they are looking for that again. As they realize it's not going to happen, they simply want to believe that even a minor reform is at least a look in their direction. It's not "dumbing up", it's desperation.
And Obama doesn't get it. He really is a product of Ivy League thinking and has forgotten where he came from, or he would at least show some sensitivity. Hillary just lies about it, but shows verbal sensitivity, even though everyone knows she's lying. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:12:03
I am anti-Hillary and won't vote for her if she gets the nomination because she's a narrow-world-viewed warmongerer who would put members of my family in the military at risk of life and limb against the interests of the United States.
Hillary is right on the gas tax and her critique of economists and Obama is wrong. Hillary is lying as usual and will not get a gas tax suspension passed. Hillary is one of the architects of the new globalized economy that has stripped the working class of union scale jobs, and caused a deterioration in the conditions of the jobs that are left by supporting deregulation, outsourcing, unbridled free trade and "reinventing government" meaning cutting regulatory jobs.
But what workers are looking for is a more social democratic economy like the one we had -- with job security, a safety net that's liveable, decent communities and not having to move far away in order to work -- like Europe.
The neo-llberal US economistocracy has rejected that model, although it works in Europe and Canada and provides a better life for ordinary working people, but not as good a life for the wealthy.
Suspending the gas tax appears to be an effort to directly help those whom the neo-liberal ecnomistocracy have rejected in favor of their barbaric model.
It's not going to help, but Obama showed no comprehension of this at all. He'd better straighten that out if he wants to win. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:08:43
Hillary is right on the gas tax and her critique of economists and Obama is wrong. Hillary is lying as usual and will not get a gas tax suspension passed. Hillary is one of the architects of the new globalized economy that has stripped the working class of union scale jobs, and caused a deterioration in the conditions of the jobs that are left by supporting deregulation, outsourcing, unbridled free trade and "reinventing government" meaning cutting regulatory jobs.
But what workers are looking for is a more social democratic economy like the one we had -- with job security, a safety net that's liveable, decent communities and not having to move far away in order to work -- like Europe.
The neo-llberal US economistocracy has rejected that model, although it works in Europe and Canada and provides a better life for ordinary working people, but not as good a life for the wealthy.
Suspending the gas tax appears to be an effort to directly help those whom the neo-liberal ecnomistocracy have rejected in favor of their barbaric model.
It's not going to help, but Obama showed no comprehension of this at all. He'd better straighten that out if he wants to win. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:08:43
On an Obama/Clinton Ticket: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Bill had former Attorney General Gonzales provide a legal memorandum which states that because Clinton was impeached, he could serve as President in a third term in the event Obama has to leave office. "An impeached President has the right to serve a replacement term for the impeached term under the term limits Constitutional Amendment, as an impeached term is not the same as a non-impeached term" stated Gonzales. "The Constitutional term limits amendment for Presidents only contemplates non-impeached terms", Gonzales concluded.
Gonzales stated that he told President Bush that he could run for a third term if he could convince the Democrats to impeach him. But despite authorizing torture, illegal wiretapping, knowingly lying about the war leading to the deaths and maimings of thousands of young Americans, providing signing statements that excluded him from laws that were passed and fiddling while New Orleans drowned, he couldn't get the Democrats to impeach him. posted 05/06/2008 at 19:32:29
Gonzales stated that he told President Bush that he could run for a third term if he could convince the Democrats to impeach him. But despite authorizing torture, illegal wiretapping, knowingly lying about the war leading to the deaths and maimings of thousands of young Americans, providing signing statements that excluded him from laws that were passed and fiddling while New Orleans drowned, he couldn't get the Democrats to impeach him. posted 05/06/2008 at 19:32:29
Whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination, Jim Webb will be the VP pick. Putting VA in play might make up for the Dems losing MI as a result of the two candidates refusing to fix the MI/FL problem to the satisfaction of the electorates of those two states. posted 05/06/2008 at 08:32:17
Clinton In 2005: 'I Agree With McCain' On Long-Term Iraq Presence
I heard she has proposed a 3 month suspension of the occupation and using the money that is saved to provide a subsidy to workers to pay for gas costs. It will supplement the suspension of the gas tax. She also intends to suspend all medical costs for 3 months and apply the savings to lower gas prices.
She says that anyone who says you still have to pay for the costs of the troops and their supplies during the 3 months the occupation is suspended and pay for medical supplies for the 3 months medical costs are suspended is an elitist, and she's not making these proposals for political reasons. posted 05/05/2008 at 14:53:35
She says that anyone who says you still have to pay for the costs of the troops and their supplies during the 3 months the occupation is suspended and pay for medical supplies for the 3 months medical costs are suspended is an elitist, and she's not making these proposals for political reasons. posted 05/05/2008 at 14:53:35
Clinton Superdelegates Would Reconsider If Obama Maintains Lead
The superdelegates have no choice but to give Obama the nomination, even if Hillary does a little better than he does in the rest of the primaries. Both of them agreed to the rules at the outset of this and he received more delegates than she did under those rules. Considering that she was the inevitable nominee at the outset, heralded as such but the corporatist media, he and his people chose a strategy and tactics based on those rules and took the nomination away from her fairly. Had the rules been different, they would have used different tactics.
What Hillary is asking is that the rules she intentionally broke be changed to reward her for breaking the rules and base that change on pollsters' and pundits' crystal balls that have been wrong at predicting the future accurately repeatedly so that the first person of color to win the majority by working hard and playing by the rules be denied the nomination.
It ain't gonna happen and the superdelegates should simply declare now.
Hilitarists might not like it, but that's how it's gonna be, and the vast majority of them are going to vote for him anyway. posted 05/05/2008 at 16:00:54
What Hillary is asking is that the rules she intentionally broke be changed to reward her for breaking the rules and base that change on pollsters' and pundits' crystal balls that have been wrong at predicting the future accurately repeatedly so that the first person of color to win the majority by working hard and playing by the rules be denied the nomination.
It ain't gonna happen and the superdelegates should simply declare now.
Hilitarists might not like it, but that's how it's gonna be, and the vast majority of them are going to vote for him anyway. posted 05/05/2008 at 16:00:54
Clinton Attacks "Wall Street Money Grubbers"
Are any of those "money grubbers" on the list of donors to her campaign and her husband's library? If so, how many, how much and who? posted 05/05/2008 at 12:17:17
Obama Seeks To End Federal Oversight Of Teamsters
They're going to need that 3 person board to oversee the activities of Haliburton, Blackwater, the Bush and Cheney families, the oil companies -- whose criminal activities make those of the mob in the Teamsters two decades ago, that have been largely eliminated, seem tame by comparison, even though they were significant. posted 05/05/2008 at 11:15:59
Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve to Be President
Any superdelegate who has not endorsed Obama after Bill's and Hillary's despicable racist remarks about "hard working" White workers being unwilling to vote for Obama is embracing a personal and Democratic Party appearance of tolerating racism. The Clintons have been tailoring a subtle racist message for their whole campaign, attempting to paint Obama as if he is in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton mode. They have mastered the area of public discourse where Whites believe something is neutral while Blacks believe it to be racist and have been playing to that area since they realized Hillary's "inevitability" might need some strengthening. I call it the OJ Zone.
With Hillary's and Bill's outright racist assertion regarding Barack's inability to get "hard working" white worker votes, they have crossed that line. Everyone but hard core racists like Pat Buchanan, Moron Joe and his adoring little sister Mika Zbig know the Clintons are playing the racism card now. Given that Barack has won more pledged delegates under the System to which both parties agreed and nothing can change that, even the Clintons attempts to get rewarded for breaking the rules to which they agreed re MI and FL, superdelegates must endorse NOW to punish her racism. posted 05/13/2008 at 11:28:17
With Hillary's and Bill's outright racist assertion regarding Barack's inability to get "hard working" white worker votes, they have crossed that line. Everyone but hard core racists like Pat Buchanan, Moron Joe and his adoring little sister Mika Zbig know the Clintons are playing the racism card now. Given that Barack has won more pledged delegates under the System to which both parties agreed and nothing can change that, even the Clintons attempts to get rewarded for breaking the rules to which they agreed re MI and FL, superdelegates must endorse NOW to punish her racism. posted 05/13/2008 at 11:28:17
Clinton Gas Tax Holiday: Hillary Attacks Economists
I believe that European style social democracy is a much better option for the vast majority of people in the US than what we have -- and what both Clinton and Obama offer. I believe in a regulated cap at the top, a livable safety net at the bottom (and that doesn't mean an unlivable minimum wage or unlivable social security, low wage, no health insurance bottom) and serious education.
I think the American working class got confused and snowed by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and are now paying for it.
It remains to be seen if Obama crushed Clinton with his argument. If Hillary wins Indiana and comes close or wins in NC, then she won the argument where it matters. As she does not believe in social democracy and is one of the team of architects behind the anti-working class globalization economic model, she will run away from anything but the mildest reforms if she win. But she wins if she is able to use the social democratic sentiment to get elected.
You Obama folk need to be able to discern between people who raise issues Obama must deal with and people who oppose Obama. He's hurt himself on this issue, methinks. posted 05/05/2008 at 10:30:07
I think the American working class got confused and snowed by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and are now paying for it.
It remains to be seen if Obama crushed Clinton with his argument. If Hillary wins Indiana and comes close or wins in NC, then she won the argument where it matters. As she does not believe in social democracy and is one of the team of architects behind the anti-working class globalization economic model, she will run away from anything but the mildest reforms if she win. But she wins if she is able to use the social democratic sentiment to get elected.
You Obama folk need to be able to discern between people who raise issues Obama must deal with and people who oppose Obama. He's hurt himself on this issue, methinks. posted 05/05/2008 at 10:30:07
I oppose Hillary and would not vote for her if she won the nomination because she is a narrow world view warmongerer who will put members of my family lives and limbs in harm's way against the interests of the working class. So Obamists, read what I'm saying here objectively, as most of you would vote for her if Obama loses.
Neverthesless, she has tailored her message brilliantly regarding suspendng the gas tax. Although most voters and virtually all of the pundits don't undestand the dynamic, most voters, especially working class voters, want to go back to the day when the country was more social democratic. They want stable, union scale jobs with job security, health care, local communities that are not deteriorating and where people work near where they live, near their families.
The economy of the US experts rejects this in favor of the rather barbaric model we have now. The Clintons, including Hillary, are more responsible for the new model and has been wholly a partisan of the globalized economics - supporting privatization, unbridled free trade and deregulation -- all of which have caused the economic changes the working class decries.
But although she is lying, she has politically caught this dynamic in her support for suspending the gas tax and her attack on the economists. The working class doesn't trust them anyway.
Obama, who should know better, doesn't have a clue. posted 05/05/2008 at 08:48:34
Neverthesless, she has tailored her message brilliantly regarding suspendng the gas tax. Although most voters and virtually all of the pundits don't undestand the dynamic, most voters, especially working class voters, want to go back to the day when the country was more social democratic. They want stable, union scale jobs with job security, health care, local communities that are not deteriorating and where people work near where they live, near their families.
The economy of the US experts rejects this in favor of the rather barbaric model we have now. The Clintons, including Hillary, are more responsible for the new model and has been wholly a partisan of the globalized economics - supporting privatization, unbridled free trade and deregulation -- all of which have caused the economic changes the working class decries.
But although she is lying, she has politically caught this dynamic in her support for suspending the gas tax and her attack on the economists. The working class doesn't trust them anyway.
Obama, who should know better, doesn't have a clue. posted 05/05/2008 at 08:48:34
Although I think her Machiavellan instincts on this issue might win her huge numbers of votes, her willingness to ignore and demean the opinions of virtually all economists, virtually all of whom oppose suspending the gas tax, is reminiscent of her failure to read the NIE prior to voting to kill and maim young Americans and Iraqis against the interests of the United States in October, 2002. Reading the NIE prior to the Iraq vote changed the mind of at least one Senator who intended to vote for the resolution but voted against it as a result of his reading of the NIE (Bob Graham of FL). posted 05/05/2008 at 06:04:16
I enjoy watching Obama partisans spew out irrational responses like this one when confronted with facts that go against their unsupported belief systems. You accuse me of forgetting her vote on Iraq. Read my last sentence.
Any of you who really believe a temporary freeze on the gas tax has any long range harm on the economy, espeically if it's tied to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, is simply playing politics with economics, and that includes the economists attacking the proposal.
I'm not a Hillary fan at all. Unlike most of you, I won't vote for the narrow world viewed warmongerer who is willing to kill or maim family members of mine against the interests of the United States if she does win the nomination.
But she does have a nose for getting votes methinks, and I think this proposal may really hurt Obama. posted 05/04/2008 at 18:48:42
Any of you who really believe a temporary freeze on the gas tax has any long range harm on the economy, espeically if it's tied to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, is simply playing politics with economics, and that includes the economists attacking the proposal.
I'm not a Hillary fan at all. Unlike most of you, I won't vote for the narrow world viewed warmongerer who is willing to kill or maim family members of mine against the interests of the United States if she does win the nomination.
But she does have a nose for getting votes methinks, and I think this proposal may really hurt Obama. posted 05/04/2008 at 18:48:42
This one will be interesting. It sounds to me like Obama screwed up here. The experts who oppose her temporary reduction of the gas tax are the same ones who support NAFTA and its progeny and are rarely right on the economy. Cutting the gas tax temporarily has been done in the past. She's saying to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies to supplant the revenue lost by the temporary reduction in the gas tax.
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 13:50:01
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 13:50:01
Dems Win Second Seat In Solidly GOP District
I know. Those Dixiecrats opposed all Civil Rights legislation as well as opposing numerous pro-Labor bills that never became law. We don't need those racist, fascist votes. Because many are poor, they don't fit in with the Republican Party program they have supported since the civil rights movement, when they became the lemmings that marched over the cliff in Nixon's Southern strategy. Let them stay where they are until they give up their racist, pro-war, anti-labor agenda and vote with what their economic interests have always been -- with progressive Democrats. Until then, let them oppose the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Marriage as members of the Republican Party that picks their pockets. We don't need them to torpedo more progressive legislation. posted 05/04/2008 at 10:53:40
Another Democratic seat opposed to defunding the war, probably in favor of the Reward Predator Credit Card and Mortgage Company Act (Bankruptcy Act) type Bills, further Trample on the Constitution Acts similar to Tramples on the Constitution Acts 1,2 and 3 (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and Protect America Act) and other despicably backwards things that give the Democrats the excuse to screw Labor and the peace movement.
These aren't even Reagan Democrats. These are the old Dixiecrat Democrats who can no longer tolerate the anti-poor people bias of the Republicans and want to make right wing crap even more popular in the Democrat Party. They're more harm than good. The first time a really important issue comes up, you'll see them refusing to back the progressive position and the Democratic leadership whining that they don't have enough votes.
Just remember that those of you who contribute to the DCCC and DSCC have your money wasted on these useless candidates. posted 05/04/2008 at 06:18:49
These aren't even Reagan Democrats. These are the old Dixiecrat Democrats who can no longer tolerate the anti-poor people bias of the Republicans and want to make right wing crap even more popular in the Democrat Party. They're more harm than good. The first time a really important issue comes up, you'll see them refusing to back the progressive position and the Democratic leadership whining that they don't have enough votes.
Just remember that those of you who contribute to the DCCC and DSCC have your money wasted on these useless candidates. posted 05/04/2008 at 06:18:49
Russert-Stephanopoulos Rivalry Mirrors Obama-Clinton Contest
The Russert/Steph competing interviews of Obama and Clinton respectively do not mirror the differences between Obama and Clinton. Both Russert and Steph are part of the despicable media team who knowingly lied the American people into the Iraq War and cheerled for the war until it didn't end. Both then put forward the lie as truth that if we get out all US troops and contractors of Iraq safely and immediately that a calamity of biblical proportions will occur and it will be like our pullout from Vietnam -- effectively trying to lie the American people into remaining in Iraq. Steph and Russert just ignore the fact that American people reject that thinking, recognizing there is no result that can occur in Iraq that is worth the cost in lives, limbs or treasure (it's destroying our economy into the foreseeable future) and continue to misstate questionable polls in order to mask the depth and breadth of the American people's desire to get out of Iraq NOW.
Both know we were driven out of Vietnam by a powerful enemy armed to the teeth by the Soviet bloc and that there is no equivalent to the North Vietnamese army, the Vietcong or the Soviet bloc -- that if we withdraw from Iraq in an organized, rapid manner, the insurgents will probably won't fire a shot. Neither Steph nor Russert even mention that when explaining why we must remain in Iraq and not leave immediately and safely.
Russert and Steph are the same posted 05/04/2008 at 06:41:20
Both know we were driven out of Vietnam by a powerful enemy armed to the teeth by the Soviet bloc and that there is no equivalent to the North Vietnamese army, the Vietcong or the Soviet bloc -- that if we withdraw from Iraq in an organized, rapid manner, the insurgents will probably won't fire a shot. Neither Steph nor Russert even mention that when explaining why we must remain in Iraq and not leave immediately and safely.
Russert and Steph are the same posted 05/04/2008 at 06:41:20
Clinton seeks gas tax vote, Obama calls it 'shell' game
This one will be interesting. It sounds to me like Obama screwed up here. The experts who oppose her temporary reduction of the gas tax are the same ones who support NAFTA and its progeny and are rarely right on the economy. Cutting the gas tax temporarily has been done in the past. She's saying to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies to supplant the revenue lost by the temporary reduction in the gas tax.
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put members of my family's lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course) against the interests of the US. posted 05/04/2008 at 07:22:42
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put members of my family's lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course) against the interests of the US. posted 05/04/2008 at 07:22:42
This one will be interesting. It sounds to me like Obama screwed up here. The experts who oppose her temporary reduction of the gas tax are the same ones who support NAFTA and its progeny and are rarely right on the economy. Cutting the gas tax temporarily has been done in the past. She's saying to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies to supplant the revenue lost by the temporary reduction in the gas tax.
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 06:57:17
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 06:57:17
John Gibson Mocks Rachel Maddow's Sexuality: "Ooh, Lesbians! Yummy!"
The right is going to target Rachel more and more -- and by right I mean the so-called center -- even people like David Gregory. Rachel is too effective in putting people like Moron Joe Scarborough and Nazi Pat Buchanan (his latest book supports his last book about WWII in which he argued the US fought on the wrong side during WWII) in their place and exposing their racist, fascist stupidity for what it is. Scarborough, Buchanan and their ilk have been used to shaping the discussion -- putting out right-wing ideology in neutral language -- using outright lies to support their arguments -- and watching morons from Wolf Blitzer to Hillary Clinton repeat the crap as if it's fact. I've seen Rachel stop Scarborough and Buchanan dead several times when they attempted to roll out another dishonest "conventional wisdom" falsehood as a truism.
Rachel has stood up well so far, although she needs to make certain she continues to see the forest through the trees at all points. posted 05/03/2008 at 01:36:58
Rachel has stood up well so far, although she needs to make certain she continues to see the forest through the trees at all points. posted 05/03/2008 at 01:36:58
Obama Compares Clinton To Bush, McCain Over Gas Tax
This one will be interesting. It sounds to me like Obama screwed up here. The experts who oppose her temporary reduction of the gas tax are the same ones who support NAFTA and its progeny and are rarely right on the economy. Cutting the gas tax temporarily has been done in the past. She's saying to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies to supplant the revenue lost by the temporary reduction in the gas tax.
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 07:54:16
It seems to me that Obama's gut response here is wrong, his advice is bad and this could hurt him unnecessarily. Sure, you can crystal ball dangers that might occur with the tax cut, but the reality is it's harmless and gives those suffering from geometrically rising gas prices the appearance politicians are doing something to combat those rising prices. I think everyone knows that oil prices are going to continue to rise no matter what, so at least make an effort to slow that rate of rise.
And I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she got the nomination because her warmongering policies put my members of my family lives and limbs in jeopardy (but not members of her family, of course). posted 05/04/2008 at 07:54:16
Democratic Party's Patience For Clinton Wears Thin
Moron Joe Scarborough (from Morning Joe) interpreted the fact that Wright said nothing as more proof that Obama is actually Wright. Nazi Pat Buchanan (whose latest book supports his last book that said the US fought on the wrong side during WWII, but is, nonetheless the pundit used by all of the media) agreed with Moron Joe and Tim Russert cancelled this coming Sunday's one hour Meet the Press interview with Obama and is interviewing Reverend Wright instead..
All of the media pundits kept asking how Obama was going to stop the exposure Wright was getting, spending their full time on TV discussing Wright, ignoring any real news, and asking how Obama would get past the Reverend Wright issue. Then they said it's not the fault of the media, that Obama was causing the media to cover it over and over.. posted 05/02/2008 at 11:34:41
All of the media pundits kept asking how Obama was going to stop the exposure Wright was getting, spending their full time on TV discussing Wright, ignoring any real news, and asking how Obama would get past the Reverend Wright issue. Then they said it's not the fault of the media, that Obama was causing the media to cover it over and over.. posted 05/02/2008 at 11:34:41
Obama Rolls On
Hillatirists may not like it, but absent a 65% or more victory by Hillary in every remaining primary, the superdelegates are going to give Obama the votes he needs to get the nomination, even if they think he is less electable than she is. If they don't, between Dems who won't vote in November and Dems who will vote for Nader or Cynthia McKinney, Hillary will definitely lose, and the superdelegates know it.
Besides, in order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should just say it now and get it over with. posted 05/02/2008 at 00:43:13
Besides, in order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should just say it now and get it over with. posted 05/02/2008 at 00:43:13
Clinton: Base "Broader And Deeper" Than Obama's
Maybe she'd have the nomination and maybe not. Remember, when this started out, she was inevitable. The Party, including her, developed rules and Obama's forces won the greatest number of delegates under those rules. If those rules had been different, Obama's forces would have developed a strategy and tactics to win under other rules. Who knows what would have happened? The fact she is in the position she is in -- losing -- given all of the advantages she had, including over a year of the media calling her inevitable -- makes it doubtful she could win in November or would be a good President if she did win. It's further proof, along with her Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman votes, that Lady Obliterate should not be President.
Hillatirists may not like it, but absent a 65% or more victory by Hillary in every remaining primary, the superdelegates are going to vote give Obama the votes he needs to get the nomination, even if they think he is less electable than she is.
In order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should do posted 05/02/2008 at 00:54:41
Hillatirists may not like it, but absent a 65% or more victory by Hillary in every remaining primary, the superdelegates are going to vote give Obama the votes he needs to get the nomination, even if they think he is less electable than she is.
In order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should do posted 05/02/2008 at 00:54:41
Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
Hillatirists may not like it, but absent a 65% or more victory by Hillary in every remaining primary, the superdelegates are going to vote give Obama the votes he needs to get the nomination, even if they think he is less electable than she is. If they don't, between Dems who won't vote in November and Dems who will vote for Nader or Cynthia McKinney, Hillary will definitely lose, and the superdelegates know it.
Besides, in order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should just say it now and get it over with. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:37:20
Besides, in order for Hillary to get the nomination assuming the current trends, a bunch of primarily white people would have to get together and decide the Black candidate who won the majority of delegates by playing by the rules established by the party, including his opponent, shouldn't get the nomination based upon their subjective crystal ball view of what will happen in November, even though his opponent flagrantly broke the rules to which she agreed.
The superdelegates should just say it now and get it over with. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:37:20
I'm Just Sayin': Open Letter to Superdelegates
Hilitarists, if they're honest, have one person to blame for the fact that the superdelegates have no choice but to give Obama the votes he needs to get the nomination. The Inevitable One -- the Queen of Obliterate -- performed a John Kerry and lost the nomination that was impossible for her to lose -- under the rules she approved. She can't win the popular vote under the rules and she can't end up with more pledged votes than Obama has under the rules.
Her failure to win when it was impossible for her to lose against Obama shows, along with her Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman votes, her "obliterate" comments and her personal attacks on world leaders with whom she will have to deal if she had won, that she's unqualified to be President -- and her phony effort to re-invent herself, as Frank Rich noted -- as the love child of Joe Hill and some other working class hero partially by misreprenting her longstanding support for NAFTA and its progeny -- does not make up for her losing the overall campaign, whose rules she approved.
If the superdelegates reverse Obama's winning by the rules, it will just be another group of primarily White Democrats using their electability crystal ball to take something away from a Black who won fair and square by the rules to which both candidates agreed.
Just give it to Obama now. posted 05/02/2008 at 13:19:05
Her failure to win when it was impossible for her to lose against Obama shows, along with her Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman votes, her "obliterate" comments and her personal attacks on world leaders with whom she will have to deal if she had won, that she's unqualified to be President -- and her phony effort to re-invent herself, as Frank Rich noted -- as the love child of Joe Hill and some other working class hero partially by misreprenting her longstanding support for NAFTA and its progeny -- does not make up for her losing the overall campaign, whose rules she approved.
If the superdelegates reverse Obama's winning by the rules, it will just be another group of primarily White Democrats using their electability crystal ball to take something away from a Black who won fair and square by the rules to which both candidates agreed.
Just give it to Obama now. posted 05/02/2008 at 13:19:05
The Morning After: Obama Aide Still Pressed On Wright
You have to take Moron Joe Scarborough with a grain of salt. He is a racist redneck who attempts to justify old style redneck racism by not using racist epithets. He has been screaming at the top of his lungs about "bittergate", Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright in his attempt to stop Obama from getting the nomination, because: (1) he is an old-style racist redneck reflecting his growing up in the "redneck Riviera" region of FL masquerading as some kind of "fair" pundit; and (2) he thinks Obama is too liberal. He has a fawning "li'l sister" on his program, Mika Zbig, whose role is to say "now Joe" when Moron Joe gets overly demonstrative and a commentator whose only expertise is about Paris and Britney but who has turned newscaster, Willy Geist.
He validates his views by regularly bringing on Nazi Pat Buchanan (whose latest book validates an earlier book he wrote saying the US fought on the wrong side during WWII and minimizes the holacaust) to agree with him and join the rant.
He should not be permitted to be a commentator unless Rachel Maddow is sitting next to him. She has both the intelligence and the courage to regularly expose him for the stupid, racist fool he is and stops him from attempting to make use his favorite tactic of making his "home town wisdom" the latest right wing talking point, repeated by the media as well as by the right. posted 04/30/2008 at 14:11:07
He validates his views by regularly bringing on Nazi Pat Buchanan (whose latest book validates an earlier book he wrote saying the US fought on the wrong side during WWII and minimizes the holacaust) to agree with him and join the rant.
He should not be permitted to be a commentator unless Rachel Maddow is sitting next to him. She has both the intelligence and the courage to regularly expose him for the stupid, racist fool he is and stops him from attempting to make use his favorite tactic of making his "home town wisdom" the latest right wing talking point, repeated by the media as well as by the right. posted 04/30/2008 at 14:11:07
Senator: Obama Has Dozens Of Secret Superdelegates Lined Up
I've heard this for weeks. Put up or shut up. posted 05/01/2008 at 11:53:49
Former Radical Tom Hayden Details Clinton's 60s Past
This is just more of the same. She votes for the Iraq criminal incursion and Kyl-Lieberman and attacks Barak for his stance on the war (accurately). She campaigns for passage of NAFTA and supports most-favored-nation status for China and attacks Obama for his pro-NAFTA and pro unbridled free trade history (accurately). She defends the Panthers and is an anti-Vietnam war activist and attacks Obama for his allegedly close association with 60s radicals (inaccurately).
She lies about trying to join the Marines. She lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. She lies about her experience, attempting to claim that experience as first lady is a significant qualification for the Presidency (inaccurately). She tries to present herself as a shot-and-a-beer type gal -- effectively giving youth a positive view, from a possible President of the United States, of alcoholism.
This woman is a real load. posted 04/27/2008 at 15:57:35
She lies about trying to join the Marines. She lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. She lies about her experience, attempting to claim that experience as first lady is a significant qualification for the Presidency (inaccurately). She tries to present herself as a shot-and-a-beer type gal -- effectively giving youth a positive view, from a possible President of the United States, of alcoholism.
This woman is a real load. posted 04/27/2008 at 15:57:35
Hillary Strangelove: Boston Globe Editorial
militaristic neo-liberalism. posted 04/27/2008 at 15:39:57
Democrats supporting Obama and Clinton may be on the same team at the end of the day, but independents and true anti-war activists are not on the same team as someone who threatens to "obliterate" the entire population of another country -- who insists on continuing to waste the lives and limbs of young Americans and Iraqis in an occupation against the interests of the United States -- who makes stupid, belligerent, personal attacks against leaders of countries with whom s/he may have to deal in the event s/he gets elected. Also, articles like this point out that stupid, harsh words of imbeciles like Clinton (that's right, she's said things like this enough that she has proven she is a stupid, narrow world viewed idiot with the built in idelogical limitations of main stream high academic thinking) render her wholly unqualified to be President, as she may get away with it here, but she starts out isolating us from the rest of the world if she wins, just like George.
I don't want her hands anywhere near the "football". She may think she's under sniper fire or something, take a shot and a beer, decide that Putin has no sould, and push the button. She's a low-life warmongerer who doesn't deserve a single anti-war vote. posted 04/27/2008 at 13:13:01
I don't want her hands anywhere near the "football". She may think she's under sniper fire or something, take a shot and a beer, decide that Putin has no sould, and push the button. She's a low-life warmongerer who doesn't deserve a single anti-war vote. posted 04/27/2008 at 13:13:01
Slew Of Gaffes Makes Pals Wonder Why Bill Clinton Is Losing It
I agree. To paraphrase Claude Rains in Casablanca, I remember when Bill Clinton blundered his way into two terms in the White House, defeating an incumbent the first time. Anyone can make a gaffe, but Bill Clinton couldn't have made this many unless they were intentional.
He knows Hillary better than anyone else knows her, and he is not a warmongerer. Although he may not be the most moral guy in the world, he abhors using Presidential power to needlessly and wastefully kill and maim young Americans and Iraqis -- and understands that Hillary's narrow world view (neoCon-light based on her record and comments during the campaign) means that many more young Amerians and Iraqis and others will be needlessly killed and maimed if she is elected, as she is a warmongerer by ideology, limited world view and inclination. That is unacceptable to him.
He can't outright oppose her, so he commits relatively transparent acts of sabotage to her campaign and is willing to take the hit as the "heavy" for doing it. Also, as Obama's articulated policy on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary's (change the designation on some troops from "combat troops" to "non-combat troops" and keep then in Iraq indefinitely), he doesn't feel it's work breaking with her by supporting Obama anyway. posted 04/27/2008 at 07:49:25
He knows Hillary better than anyone else knows her, and he is not a warmongerer. Although he may not be the most moral guy in the world, he abhors using Presidential power to needlessly and wastefully kill and maim young Americans and Iraqis -- and understands that Hillary's narrow world view (neoCon-light based on her record and comments during the campaign) means that many more young Amerians and Iraqis and others will be needlessly killed and maimed if she is elected, as she is a warmongerer by ideology, limited world view and inclination. That is unacceptable to him.
He can't outright oppose her, so he commits relatively transparent acts of sabotage to her campaign and is willing to take the hit as the "heavy" for doing it. Also, as Obama's articulated policy on Iraq is nearly identical to Hillary's (change the designation on some troops from "combat troops" to "non-combat troops" and keep then in Iraq indefinitely), he doesn't feel it's work breaking with her by supporting Obama anyway. posted 04/27/2008 at 07:49:25
Democrats Fear Clinton's Attacks May Cause Racial Backlash
The headline is wrong. It should say: Hillary's Slimy Use of Racism to Steal the Nomination She Lost Under the Rules She Agreed to Is Causing a Racial Backlash. posted 04/26/2008 at 11:20:44
Time: You Can Only Vote For One
Superdelegates have no choice but to give Obama the nomination, assuming he wins the most delegates and the popular vote (not including Hillary's hilarity of counting FL and MI for herself), even if they're worried about Obama's electability. Hillary has not demonstrated that she's more electable. If the superdelegates award the nomination to Hillary even though Obama won the most delegates and the popular vote, huge numbers of Democratic voters would bolt to McKinney and Nader in Nov., or just not vote at all, giving both the White House and both Houses of Congress to the Republicans.
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/26/2008 at 11:37:30
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/26/2008 at 11:37:30
Superdelegates have no choice but to give Obama the nomination, assuming he wins the most delegates and the popular vote (not including Hillary's hilarity of counting FL and MI for herself), even if they're worried about Obama's electability. Hillary has not demonstrated that she's more electable. If the superdelegates award the nomination to Hillary even though Obama won the most delegates and the popular vote, huge numbers of Democratic voters would bolt to McKinney and Nader in Nov., or just not vote at all, giving both the White House and both Houses of Congress to the Republicans.
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability possibilities though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/26/2008 at 11:07:44
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability possibilities though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/26/2008 at 11:07:44
The so-called "superdelegates" are not muddled. Assuming Obama continues to have both the popular vote (excluding MI and FL) AND a majority of delegates, they have no choice but to choose Obama -- even if they believe he's unelectable or, more to the point, that Hillary is electable and he is not (a real stretch).
If the superdelgates override the popular vote and the delegate vote, it will result in a huge Nader and McKinney vote (which will be larger than they expect anyway because both frontrunners intend to keep troops in Iraq) in Nov. Many who won't vote Nader or McKinney simply won't vote in Nov. if the superdelegates try to steal the election. The Dems will not only lose the White House, they'll lose the House and Senate too, as Republicans will come out and Dems won't.
These are all smart people and know this. And that's why they'll back Obama. Having said that, Hillary has pointed out significant weaknesses in Obama's electability possibilities. And Obama's sitting on his butt and opposing primary reruns in FL and MI, allowing reruns to die in the state legislatures because he feared she'd win them, needs to be corrected in some manner acceptable to those electorates if the Dems intend to win at least one of them in Nov. If they lose both (which is probable without a fair fix), McCain becomes President. posted 04/26/2008 at 07:02:44
If the superdelgates override the popular vote and the delegate vote, it will result in a huge Nader and McKinney vote (which will be larger than they expect anyway because both frontrunners intend to keep troops in Iraq) in Nov. Many who won't vote Nader or McKinney simply won't vote in Nov. if the superdelegates try to steal the election. The Dems will not only lose the White House, they'll lose the House and Senate too, as Republicans will come out and Dems won't.
These are all smart people and know this. And that's why they'll back Obama. Having said that, Hillary has pointed out significant weaknesses in Obama's electability possibilities. And Obama's sitting on his butt and opposing primary reruns in FL and MI, allowing reruns to die in the state legislatures because he feared she'd win them, needs to be corrected in some manner acceptable to those electorates if the Dems intend to win at least one of them in Nov. If they lose both (which is probable without a fair fix), McCain becomes President. posted 04/26/2008 at 07:02:44
Report: Key Superdelegates Set To Endorse Obama When Time Is Right
Superdelegates have no choice but to give Obama the nomination, assuming he wins the most delegates and the popular vote (not including Hillary's hilarity of counting FL and MI for herself), even if they're worried about Obama's electability. Hillary has not demonstrated that she's more electable. If the superdelegates award the nomination to Hillary even though Obama won the most delegates and the popular vote, huge numbers of Democratic voters would bolt to McKinney and Nader in Nov., or just not vote at all, giving both the White House and both Houses of Congress to the Republicans.
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/25/2008 at 16:26:05
Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's electability though, and those must be dealt with honestly, without hype. That includes dealing with MI/FL, as the Dems need at least one of those states in Nov. to win and will most likely lose both (according to the existing polls and data as opposed to the ouija boards used by Obama partisans who just assert MI will go blue) if they don't fix the problem. Obama showed his electability problems by sitting on his butt and allowing the state legislatures of MI and FL to kill rerun primaries in both states, as he feared Hillary would beat him in both. posted 04/25/2008 at 16:26:05
Pelosi On The Dream Ticket: "No, I Don't Think It's A Good Idea"
Whether Hillary or Obama get the nomination, Jim Webb will be the VP candidate. posted 04/25/2008 at 11:01:21
Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton
Don't worry about it. It's just the media's dying gasp to get the candidate they called "inevitable" for well over a year the nomination. The corporate owners of the media, through the lying pundits who lied us into the war knowing that what they were broadcasting to win over the American people was lies, feel more secure with corporatist Hillary than they do with corporatist Obama.
But bottom line the superdelegates have no choice but to give the nod to Obama, assuming he maintains the delegate and popular lead, even if they are sincerely worried about his electability. Hillary has exposed some significant weaknesses in Obama's electability, but has not demonstrated she is any more electable.
And if the superdelegates try to pull on Obama what the Supreme Court pulled on Gore -- steal the election -- so many Obama supporters will defect to Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or simply not vote that the Dems will lose the White House AND Congress, if Obama more elected delegates and more popular votes in accordance with the rules. An Obama appeal to them to vote Democratic despite the broken rules will go nowhere.
Hillary's efforts to count MI and FL in her favor after she agreed to the rules she broke is laughable and despicable. But Obama's refusal to agree to a rerun of those primaries -- so that the electorates of MI and FL who are not responsible for the rules margainalizing their votes -- demonstrated some of the electability problems posted 04/25/2008 at 09:05:05
But bottom line the superdelegates have no choice but to give the nod to Obama, assuming he maintains the delegate and popular lead, even if they are sincerely worried about his electability. Hillary has exposed some significant weaknesses in Obama's electability, but has not demonstrated she is any more electable.
And if the superdelegates try to pull on Obama what the Supreme Court pulled on Gore -- steal the election -- so many Obama supporters will defect to Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or simply not vote that the Dems will lose the White House AND Congress, if Obama more elected delegates and more popular votes in accordance with the rules. An Obama appeal to them to vote Democratic despite the broken rules will go nowhere.
Hillary's efforts to count MI and FL in her favor after she agreed to the rules she broke is laughable and despicable. But Obama's refusal to agree to a rerun of those primaries -- so that the electorates of MI and FL who are not responsible for the rules margainalizing their votes -- demonstrated some of the electability problems posted 04/25/2008 at 09:05:05
Influencing Our Analysts: A Crisis in Trust and Credibility
I'm very upset with your comment about Senator Lott. He DID NOT trade in his sheet. (hahaha) He is using it to attract all of those who remember that if Strom Thurmond had won in 1948, everything would be great, instead of as it is now as clients. posted 04/25/2008 at 10:27:49
The practice of using government service as a stepping stone to lucrative jobs in the private sector extends well beyond the military. Agencies like the old Interstate Commerce Commission (now the Surface Transportation Board) have always been a stop for those appointed to it on the way to working, at enormous salaries, for the nation's railroads. In this way -- with the promise of fabulous wealth upon their leaving govrnment service -- those on these agencies ignore regulations and regularly decide in favor of those whom they are supposed to regulate -- knowing they will be rewarded when they leave their government positions so long as they are loyal to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. This happens under Democrats and Republicans alike. Every once in awhile the press covers this outright corruption, but nothing is ever done about it -- kind of like the useless hearings the Democrats have been conducting into Republican corruption, cronyism and criminality -- an endeavor designed to get nothing done but satisfy the base -- rather than moving impeachment.
So although Skelton is right, Congress is a willing collaborator in the practice he condemns. posted 04/25/2008 at 08:30:19
So although Skelton is right, Congress is a willing collaborator in the practice he condemns. posted 04/25/2008 at 08:30:19
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean May Intervene In Dem Primary
Wright and "bittergate" are manufactured by the media. They mean nothing to any non-partisan voter. Only the media, pundits and Hillary and McCain partisans care about them as a means of possibly derailing Obama. I am not one who loves Obama, because he opposes immediate, safe withdrawal from Iraq, he opposes single-payer, universal health care and he, like Hillary, support unbridled free trade (both just recently supported the Peru Free Trade Act, extending NAFTA principles to Peru -- opposing labor and others who have been devastated by these kinds of trade bills -- and it has no significant labor environmental protections).
But that doesn't mean that Reverend Wright or "bittergate" mean anything to anyone but Clinton and McCain partisans and the propaganda arm of the corporations -- the media and pundits. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:56:15
But that doesn't mean that Reverend Wright or "bittergate" mean anything to anyone but Clinton and McCain partisans and the propaganda arm of the corporations -- the media and pundits. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:56:15
Shuddup about this already and just let it work itself out. Assuming Obama does what he appears to be doing -- winning the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote (despite Hillary's attempt to count FL and MI for herself with Obama getting 0 votes in MI after she broke the rules she agreed to on both) -- the superdelegates will select him, even if they think he's not electable. If they don't select him after he won according to the rules, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader will get large votes and many other likely Democratic voters simply won't vote -- guaranteeing McCain the election. The superdelegates have no choice -- nor should they.
Having said that, and as someone who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the nomination because she is a warmongerer with a narrow world view who will send the military members of my family into harm's way against the interests of the Uniited States, Obama was wrong to sit on his butt and oppose a primary rerun in FL and MI, because if both states go red, whoever the Democratic nominee is will most likely lose to McCain in Nov. Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's ability to win, but has not shown she is more electable. Insulting the voters of MI/FL over obscure rules makes those states very likely to go red in Nov. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:43:04
Having said that, and as someone who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the nomination because she is a warmongerer with a narrow world view who will send the military members of my family into harm's way against the interests of the Uniited States, Obama was wrong to sit on his butt and oppose a primary rerun in FL and MI, because if both states go red, whoever the Democratic nominee is will most likely lose to McCain in Nov. Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's ability to win, but has not shown she is more electable. Insulting the voters of MI/FL over obscure rules makes those states very likely to go red in Nov. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:43:04
Excerpts from Rev. Jeremiah Wright Interview with Bill Moyers
In reading your profile, despite your comments to the contrary, it is obvious you were anti-Obama in the first place. It's also obvious you have a real problem regarding race. All I'm saying is that virtually no non-partisan voter cares at all about Reverend Wright or "bittergate". Obviously there are some partisans, like yourself, who will seize on anything the media seizes upon to attack a candidate if you think it will work. But given your leanings towards McCain -- the guy who courted and accepts support from a despicable animal like the Reverend who says the people of New Orleans got what God intended they get -- you prove my point. You don't care one iota about "bittergate" or Reverend Wright, except hoping they will hurt Obama. But neither will, as Reverend Wright speaks for Reverend Wright on the controversial issues, and Obama comes from the working class and simply misspoke, and said so.
The media is just trying to drive Obama out of the race now, as the corporations like Hillary more. And they are using the despicable, lying pundits, networks, cable news and press to do it. They have already failed. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:26:03
The media is just trying to drive Obama out of the race now, as the corporations like Hillary more. And they are using the despicable, lying pundits, networks, cable news and press to do it. They have already failed. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:26:03
It is amusing to watch the despicable media turn on Obama -- attempt to do what they attempted to do all along -- see that Clinton gets the nomination so that two despicable warmongerers (Hillary and McCain) will run against each other. After declaring her inevitable and pushing that for a year, now they are developing excuses why Obama, who has won, shouldn't get the nomination.
I watch the same pundits who lied us into Iraq and lie about how we can't get out immediately and safely now -- the same ones who counted Hillary out 2 weeks ago -- suddenly trumpet issues that are utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans -- what Wright said, bittergate, etc. -- as if voters in PA rejected Obama because of those things. These pundits -- Matthews, old bat stupid Margaret Carlson and her namesake stuipid middle aged Tucker Carlson, Moron Joe Scarborough, Pat (the Nazi) Buchanan -- have all of a sudden stated, based upon a state that neighbors Hillary's own state and had a machine loyal to Bill (not Hillary) for decades that went for Hillary by a little under 10 points, after she had been ahead by 20 points that Obama has lost his edge and is danger of losing the nomination.
Wright and bittergate mean nothing to anyone but the lying pundits and Obama appears inevitable. posted 04/24/2008 at 20:03:57
I watch the same pundits who lied us into Iraq and lie about how we can't get out immediately and safely now -- the same ones who counted Hillary out 2 weeks ago -- suddenly trumpet issues that are utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans -- what Wright said, bittergate, etc. -- as if voters in PA rejected Obama because of those things. These pundits -- Matthews, old bat stupid Margaret Carlson and her namesake stuipid middle aged Tucker Carlson, Moron Joe Scarborough, Pat (the Nazi) Buchanan -- have all of a sudden stated, based upon a state that neighbors Hillary's own state and had a machine loyal to Bill (not Hillary) for decades that went for Hillary by a little under 10 points, after she had been ahead by 20 points that Obama has lost his edge and is danger of losing the nomination.
Wright and bittergate mean nothing to anyone but the lying pundits and Obama appears inevitable. posted 04/24/2008 at 20:03:57
The Self-Loathing Liberal Media
Excellent post, Arianna. But the underlying assumption is that the media and pundits are honest and liberal in the first place. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The media has always lied us into wars and then developed dishonest excuses to keep us in them. From the early days of the Republic when the media fanned the flames of genocide against the Native American population through the yellow journalism of Hearst, through the Gulf of Tonkin until now, the media has simply been a lying cheerleader for the corporations that owned them. Nothing has changed.
As for Snow, Rove and Kristol, as despicable and dishonest as all three are, the reality is that without them MSNBC fired Phil Donahue when he broadcast honesty about Iraq. None of the cheerleaders for the Iraq war on the networks, the cable news or the press have ever been punished. Russert, Gibson, Steph -- all of them with the exception of Keith Olbermann -- continue on -- nearly always wrong, knowingly on most issues.
The media is, with or without Rove, Snow and Kristol, the propaganda arm of the military industrial complex. posted 04/24/2008 at 13:23:53
As for Snow, Rove and Kristol, as despicable and dishonest as all three are, the reality is that without them MSNBC fired Phil Donahue when he broadcast honesty about Iraq. None of the cheerleaders for the Iraq war on the networks, the cable news or the press have ever been punished. Russert, Gibson, Steph -- all of them with the exception of Keith Olbermann -- continue on -- nearly always wrong, knowingly on most issues.
The media is, with or without Rove, Snow and Kristol, the propaganda arm of the military industrial complex. posted 04/24/2008 at 13:23:53
New Republic: Obama's Coalition Shifting From Moderates To McGovern-esque
The problem with your thinking -- and I agree with your assessment of his apparent problems in a general election -- is that his campaign has also exposed her weaknesses as a candidate in the general election -- she can't win either.
The question will end up which of the losers can get more Democeratic Congressmen and Congresswomen elected.
Although it can't happen -- the delegates should draft Gore. The willingness of both candidates to politicize the MI/FL calamity and not fix it, regardless of who is at fault, shows that both are more interested in the nomination than in the general election anyway. posted 04/24/2008 at 08:32:53
The question will end up which of the losers can get more Democeratic Congressmen and Congresswomen elected.
Although it can't happen -- the delegates should draft Gore. The willingness of both candidates to politicize the MI/FL calamity and not fix it, regardless of who is at fault, shows that both are more interested in the nomination than in the general election anyway. posted 04/24/2008 at 08:32:53
Obama Camp May Turn To Negative Clinton History
Total number of electoral votes from the following states for the Democratic candidate in November:
GA -- 0
MS -- 0
NC -- 0
SC -- 0
ND -- 0
SD -- 0
WY -- 0
UT -- 0
Why should their votes count for President at the Dem Convention? If that's Obama's base, McCain wins. posted 04/23/2008 at 12:04:51
GA -- 0
MS -- 0
NC -- 0
SC -- 0
ND -- 0
SD -- 0
WY -- 0
UT -- 0
Why should their votes count for President at the Dem Convention? If that's Obama's base, McCain wins. posted 04/23/2008 at 12:04:51
I would not vote for Hillary whether she wins the nomination or not -- as she is personally committed to send family members of mine into harm's way against the interests of the United States because she has a narrow, neo-Con-like world view.
Having said that, I find the Obama partisans living in a delusional world. They can rationalize anything in order to get the nomination. Obama refused to allow the FL/MI problem be fixed with rerun primaries in both states, sitting back and waiting until the states ended that possibility. As the Dems must win one of those states in November, refusal to give a fair fix simply means that McCain will probably win both states. Obama didn't want reruns there because he feared losing the popular vote.
The Obama partisans ignore that Barack's wins in states like Georgia, North and South Caronlina, North and South Dakota, MS, and several others are meaningless. Those delegates shouldn't have the same vote as delegates from other states when selecting a Presidential nominee as the Democrats are not in play in those states in November. Yes, Obama won VA, Ill., MO., MD., MN., WS and those states are meaningful. But losing in Ohio, PA, NJ and numerous other major Democratic strongholds really does show he may not be electable.
Stop talking spin and self-delusion about the difference between primaries and general elections and confront and fix the problem or McCain will be President. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:18:28
Having said that, I find the Obama partisans living in a delusional world. They can rationalize anything in order to get the nomination. Obama refused to allow the FL/MI problem be fixed with rerun primaries in both states, sitting back and waiting until the states ended that possibility. As the Dems must win one of those states in November, refusal to give a fair fix simply means that McCain will probably win both states. Obama didn't want reruns there because he feared losing the popular vote.
The Obama partisans ignore that Barack's wins in states like Georgia, North and South Caronlina, North and South Dakota, MS, and several others are meaningless. Those delegates shouldn't have the same vote as delegates from other states when selecting a Presidential nominee as the Democrats are not in play in those states in November. Yes, Obama won VA, Ill., MO., MD., MN., WS and those states are meaningful. But losing in Ohio, PA, NJ and numerous other major Democratic strongholds really does show he may not be electable.
Stop talking spin and self-delusion about the difference between primaries and general elections and confront and fix the problem or McCain will be President. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:18:28
Pennsylvania Observations
Excellent post. It's refreshing to see a post by someone who has no real dog in the race and is simply trying to evaluate the facts. Obama needs to prove he is as electable, or more electable than Hillary. Hillary must prove she can win. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the nomination because she has proven herself to be a warmongerer with a narrow world view and is willing to put the military members of my family in harm's way against the interests of the United States.
Nevertheless, Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's ability to get the votes necessary he needs to beat McCain. Obamists merely spin over these weaknesses.
It is funny to hear Obamists get angry when people suggest that Dems are likely to lose MI and FL if those problems aren't fixed -- acting as if only Hillary people care about that. The reality is that both states are very likely to go to McCain if the MI/FL problems aren't fairly fixed and Obama just sitting on his butt and allowing the states' legislatures to take away the only fair resolution of the problem -- rerun primary elections -- because Obama feared that Hillary would win those primaries, simply adds to the questions of his electability in Nov.
These aren't pro-Hillary arguments -- they're objective questions from anti-Hillary people that need to be answered. posted 04/24/2008 at 08:19:34
Nevertheless, Hillary has exposed significant weaknesses in Obama's ability to get the votes necessary he needs to beat McCain. Obamists merely spin over these weaknesses.
It is funny to hear Obamists get angry when people suggest that Dems are likely to lose MI and FL if those problems aren't fixed -- acting as if only Hillary people care about that. The reality is that both states are very likely to go to McCain if the MI/FL problems aren't fairly fixed and Obama just sitting on his butt and allowing the states' legislatures to take away the only fair resolution of the problem -- rerun primary elections -- because Obama feared that Hillary would win those primaries, simply adds to the questions of his electability in Nov.
These aren't pro-Hillary arguments -- they're objective questions from anti-Hillary people that need to be answered. posted 04/24/2008 at 08:19:34
Is Hillary's Win a Win?
Send your kids to fight her war - and send Chelsea too, not my family. Through her policies and record, she is personally out to kill or maim my family members, against the interests of the U.S. And it was 26% -- but I guess you were under sniper fire in Bosnia too, after you were rejected by the Marines. posted 04/23/2008 at 09:48:08
Thank all of you for your explanations. You may be deluding yourselves, but maybe not. Demozealot: as for your question regarding the Party, I will not vote for anyone who will not commit to immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq. If I vote for someone who won't make that commitment -- especially someone of Hillary's warmongering record and recent comments -- I am voting to put the military members of my family in harm's way, against the interests of the Untied States. Everything else is simply double-talking points by Democats trying to get anti-war voes while they do what they've done since the beginning -- collaborate on killing and maiming our kids in a criminal endeavor, against our interests, for oil.
I will not vote to have a D kill and maim my family against the interests of the US any more than I would vote for an R to do so. posted 04/23/2008 at 08:26:07
I will not vote to have a D kill and maim my family against the interests of the US any more than I would vote for an R to do so. posted 04/23/2008 at 08:26:07
I would not vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, as she is a limited world view warmongerer who would send my family into harm's way against the interests of the United States.
Having said that, she appears to be the stronger Democratic candidate against McCain. How do Obama partisans explain that their candidate lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, most of New England, CA and many other must-win states? His wins in states like Georgia, North and South Carolina (I assume he'll win North Carolina), MS, and other such places shouldn't even count, as they are not in play for Democrats in Nov. In FL, although I don't support counting those votes and believe there should be a rerun primary there and in MI (if either state has a chance to end up in the Democratic column in November), the size of her win there, after Obama had won numerous primaries including South Carolina just a few days earlier, should be troublesome for honest Obama supporters. Yes, he won Ill., MO, MD, WI and VA -- important states, but most of his wins are in irrelevant states.
I'd like some honest Obama person to explain -- using straight talk -- how they think they win in November given how unable Obama has been to win the critical states. posted 04/23/2008 at 06:39:42
Having said that, she appears to be the stronger Democratic candidate against McCain. How do Obama partisans explain that their candidate lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, most of New England, CA and many other must-win states? His wins in states like Georgia, North and South Carolina (I assume he'll win North Carolina), MS, and other such places shouldn't even count, as they are not in play for Democrats in Nov. In FL, although I don't support counting those votes and believe there should be a rerun primary there and in MI (if either state has a chance to end up in the Democratic column in November), the size of her win there, after Obama had won numerous primaries including South Carolina just a few days earlier, should be troublesome for honest Obama supporters. Yes, he won Ill., MO, MD, WI and VA -- important states, but most of his wins are in irrelevant states.
I'd like some honest Obama person to explain -- using straight talk -- how they think they win in November given how unable Obama has been to win the critical states. posted 04/23/2008 at 06:39:42
Pennsylvania Exit Polls: Primary Results
I think that Hillary has a limited world view and is a warmongerer and wouldn't vote for her if she wins the nomination.
Having said that, how do Obama partisans rationalize Obama's continuous failure to win states critical to a Democratic win in November? Obama winning Georgia, MS, North and South Carolina, North and South Dakota, and other states shouldn't even count, as none of them are truly in play for the Dems in November. It's true he won VA, Ill., MN., MO., WI, MD. and they matter. But losing Ohio, Pa., not to mention NY, NJ, MA, CA is really significant. Spin it all you want, but the guy appears to be an incredibly weak candidate against McCain.
I know Obama partisans don't want to hear this, but it has to be dealt with. Also, the FL results, though flawed, took place directly after Obama won a huge victory in South Carolina and in several other states as well. I'm not saying the FL results should count (although the FL/MI problem must be fixed to the satisfaction of the FL/MI electorates if the Dems expect to win in Nov.), but it's quite telling that she beat him by such a huge margin there analytically.
I haven't heard anything other than spin from the Obama camp on this and wonder how it's going to be dealt with. posted 04/23/2008 at 01:21:31
Having said that, how do Obama partisans rationalize Obama's continuous failure to win states critical to a Democratic win in November? Obama winning Georgia, MS, North and South Carolina, North and South Dakota, and other states shouldn't even count, as none of them are truly in play for the Dems in November. It's true he won VA, Ill., MN., MO., WI, MD. and they matter. But losing Ohio, Pa., not to mention NY, NJ, MA, CA is really significant. Spin it all you want, but the guy appears to be an incredibly weak candidate against McCain.
I know Obama partisans don't want to hear this, but it has to be dealt with. Also, the FL results, though flawed, took place directly after Obama won a huge victory in South Carolina and in several other states as well. I'm not saying the FL results should count (although the FL/MI problem must be fixed to the satisfaction of the FL/MI electorates if the Dems expect to win in Nov.), but it's quite telling that she beat him by such a huge margin there analytically.
I haven't heard anything other than spin from the Obama camp on this and wonder how it's going to be dealt with. posted 04/23/2008 at 01:21:31
On Course For Another White Guy Election
White guys are a pretty diverse group. Obama knows better than to attack them as a group. Why do Obama supporters consider it necessary to attack them in that manner? The picture and the article are designed to drive away huge numbers of white male voters who are looking primarily at economic issues, secondarily at race issues, if they are looking at race issues at all. Additionally, as many of the front line troops are white guys, many of them and their families vehemently oppose the war. Stop using the kinds of stereotypes designed to drive away whie male voters and take your lead from Barack. He is attempting to speak to them by proposing change on the economy and the direction we are going as a nation. His refusal to commit to getting out all US troops and contractors from Iraq and his support of free trade agreements like the Peru Free Trade Agreement just a couiple of months ago make him suspect. But deal with economics and the issues Obama supporters -- like Barack does -- and cut out the unflattering, anti-white working class distortions directed at the second largest group of voters in the country -- and in Pennsylvania. posted 04/22/2008 at 14:09:23
Hillary Clinton Ad Features Osama Bin Laden: Campaign AdWatch
After watching the Hillary ad with bin Laden, I don't understand all of the hullaballoo. Although it's true it plays to fearmongering, it stresses her warmongering record. No one in PA or anywhere else buys her efforts to become the female incarnation of Sg't. Rock. Given her background and record as an anti-Vietnam war activist when it was her war, her warmongering has a real hypocritical edge to it -- with her sending her military-aged daughter, safe in her wealthy environment, to exhort working class citizens of PA to support her mother's policy of sending them to remain in Iraq indefinitely -- placing those working class citizens in harm's way while Chelsea ducks the battle -- as her mom and dad did when it was their time to fight a wrong war.
It's important for Obama supporters to distinguish between negative attacks on Obama and ads like this one. It is not a negative ad directed at Obama. It is a negative ad directed at Hillary by Hillary -- because it's another example of her sniper comments. Despite her comments about wanting to join the Marines and her conversion to neo-Con-like policies -- when it was her time she ducked and now that it's her daughter's time, she's having her daughter duck battle too.
Hillary the Marine wannabe. Hillary under sniper fire. She's just stressing her dishonesty. posted 04/22/2008 at 03:43:21
It's important for Obama supporters to distinguish between negative attacks on Obama and ads like this one. It is not a negative ad directed at Obama. It is a negative ad directed at Hillary by Hillary -- because it's another example of her sniper comments. Despite her comments about wanting to join the Marines and her conversion to neo-Con-like policies -- when it was her time she ducked and now that it's her daughter's time, she's having her daughter duck battle too.
Hillary the Marine wannabe. Hillary under sniper fire. She's just stressing her dishonesty. posted 04/22/2008 at 03:43:21
Fearmongering and warmongering in one ad. She really is a load. posted 04/21/2008 at 14:42:06
Michael Moore Endorses Obama, Calls Clinton Tactics "Disgusting"
Wrong on all counts. Obama refuses to commit to bringing out all US troops and contractor forces. He says he'll bring out some, but refuses to commit to getting all of them out. His position is nearly identical to Hillary's.
You're wrong on universal, single payer health care. It's what the American people want and would not cause him to lose.
You're wrong on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Labor opposed it with as much vigor as it opposes NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement -- because it doesn't have adequate labor and environmental protections and would cause more jobs to leave our shores and more products produced by exploited work forces to end up here -- products that used to be made by Americans with union scale wages and benefits.
You neither know nor care about this, as strong Obama partisans will say anything -- no matter how dishonest -- in order to get corporatist Obama elected.
Michael does know and care about these issues and has chosen, by endorsing corporatist Obama, to ignore them against all of the principles upon which his brilliant documentaries are based.
Michael has strong guilt about supporting Nader believing Gore would't have attacked Iraq. Michael has become a parrot for the Dems when he endorses -- his only compromise with corporatism. Who knows what Gore would have done after 9/11? Remember, the 2000 Gore was not the Gore who emerged after the Presidency was stolen from him. The current Gore is much posted 04/22/2008 at 07:07:12
You're wrong on universal, single payer health care. It's what the American people want and would not cause him to lose.
You're wrong on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Labor opposed it with as much vigor as it opposes NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement -- because it doesn't have adequate labor and environmental protections and would cause more jobs to leave our shores and more products produced by exploited work forces to end up here -- products that used to be made by Americans with union scale wages and benefits.
You neither know nor care about this, as strong Obama partisans will say anything -- no matter how dishonest -- in order to get corporatist Obama elected.
Michael does know and care about these issues and has chosen, by endorsing corporatist Obama, to ignore them against all of the principles upon which his brilliant documentaries are based.
Michael has strong guilt about supporting Nader believing Gore would't have attacked Iraq. Michael has become a parrot for the Dems when he endorses -- his only compromise with corporatism. Who knows what Gore would have done after 9/11? Remember, the 2000 Gore was not the Gore who emerged after the Presidency was stolen from him. The current Gore is much posted 04/22/2008 at 07:07:12
Michael is one of the few true progressives in the U.S., except for his endorsements. Yes, Hillary and McCain suck. But Obama opposes single-payer, universal health care, supports keeping troops and contractors in Iraq indefinitely and supports NAFTA and its progeny (despite rhetoric to the contrary, he recently supported an extension of NAFTA principles to Peru). In other words, Obama sucks too.
Michael understands the issues, goes to the edge, and then responds like one of Pavlov's dogs to the Democratic Party bell and salivates by supporting corporatist Democrats -- lacking the courage of his convictions.
I still love him though. At least he points out the contradictions without compromising. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:03:20
Michael understands the issues, goes to the edge, and then responds like one of Pavlov's dogs to the Democratic Party bell and salivates by supporting corporatist Democrats -- lacking the courage of his convictions.
I still love him though. At least he points out the contradictions without compromising. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:03:20
7 Days: Teflon-Obama? w/ Dorgan, Huffington, Green & Bender
It's not that Obama has teflon, it's that Hillary personally is such a load. Hillary is NOT better than her campaign. Her chosen strategist, Mark Penn, reflected her. Her new strategist is far better than she is.
Hillary has demonstrated over and over again that she is a warmongerer with a limited world view. Her latest comments -- offering US troops' (including my family) lives and limbs to keep two bit Middle Eastern despots in power -- is just more proof of her warmongerer, neo-Con mentality, (along with voting to invade Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman).
Her lies about trying to join the Marines almost got through, but must now be analyzed in light of her outright lies about Bosnia -- an anti-Vietnam war activist suddenly trying to portray herself as the female incarnation of Sergeant Rock.
Same on trade. She is now attempting to portray her long vigorous defense of the despicable NAFTA and its progeny (most recently supporting extension of NAFTA principles to Peru within the past couple of months) as if she's the reincarnation of Eugene Debs -- always in opposition to it.
People see this constant lying and take her for what she is -- not her campaign -- her -- a load.
Obama's considerable weaknesses are dwarfed by her huge ones, and so the polls don't move, despite his weaknesses. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:26:10
Hillary has demonstrated over and over again that she is a warmongerer with a limited world view. Her latest comments -- offering US troops' (including my family) lives and limbs to keep two bit Middle Eastern despots in power -- is just more proof of her warmongerer, neo-Con mentality, (along with voting to invade Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman).
Her lies about trying to join the Marines almost got through, but must now be analyzed in light of her outright lies about Bosnia -- an anti-Vietnam war activist suddenly trying to portray herself as the female incarnation of Sergeant Rock.
Same on trade. She is now attempting to portray her long vigorous defense of the despicable NAFTA and its progeny (most recently supporting extension of NAFTA principles to Peru within the past couple of months) as if she's the reincarnation of Eugene Debs -- always in opposition to it.
People see this constant lying and take her for what she is -- not her campaign -- her -- a load.
Obama's considerable weaknesses are dwarfed by her huge ones, and so the polls don't move, despite his weaknesses. posted 04/21/2008 at 11:26:10
'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' Leader's Newspaper Backs Clinton
Hillary has an incredibly limited world view. She is a warmongerer and a true believer. She has bought, hook, line and sinker, the neo-Con world view. She has even signed on to commit my family to further wars in the Middle East -- and has her military aged daughter on the campaign stump pushing to put my family in harm's way.
If you analyze her closely, especially prior to the past few months, but if you look closely even the past few months, she is a female version of Lieberman, except slightly to the right of him on domestic issues. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:38:27
If you analyze her closely, especially prior to the past few months, but if you look closely even the past few months, she is a female version of Lieberman, except slightly to the right of him on domestic issues. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:38:27
Sunday Roundup
Another great Arianna article. But we need to strike the word "Rovian" from our language. It's just another form of demonization and actually weakens the impact of the point being made. Rove is just another pawn in the whole setup. The media have played this despicable role ever since they lambased Native Americans for being savages in editorials during the 1800s. They attempt to define the center and every time they do it the center moves to the right.
Does anyone really believe the shameless performance by Steph and Gibson was simply confined to their moderating skills? They were acting as conscious agents for McCain -- as their employers directed them to do. They were as much marionettes as was the media at the start of the Iraq War, simply ignoring the well-known truth of the time -- that Saddam had no WMDs (Blix) and was an enemy of al Qaeda (bin Laden had called him an infidel numerous times). These highly educated and knowledgeable journalists all knew that Bush, Cheney, Powell and many others explained the reason we didn't march on Baghdad at the time was because it would create a power vacuum and a quagmire. But they cheerled anyway -- and that's the New York Times, the networks and cable news (not only Fox, as MSNBC fired Phil Donahue at the time).
The media is just the propaganda arm of the military industrial complex. posted 04/20/2008 at 09:11:42
Does anyone really believe the shameless performance by Steph and Gibson was simply confined to their moderating skills? They were acting as conscious agents for McCain -- as their employers directed them to do. They were as much marionettes as was the media at the start of the Iraq War, simply ignoring the well-known truth of the time -- that Saddam had no WMDs (Blix) and was an enemy of al Qaeda (bin Laden had called him an infidel numerous times). These highly educated and knowledgeable journalists all knew that Bush, Cheney, Powell and many others explained the reason we didn't march on Baghdad at the time was because it would create a power vacuum and a quagmire. But they cheerled anyway -- and that's the New York Times, the networks and cable news (not only Fox, as MSNBC fired Phil Donahue at the time).
The media is just the propaganda arm of the military industrial complex. posted 04/20/2008 at 09:11:42
Popular Stories on HuffPost
Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man. He's a born-again Christian with two family...
Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live"
With the Democratic nomination now in its endgame, it's time to speculate on...
On Friday, Barack Obama publicly raised the possibility of helping Hillary Clinton pay...
It should come as no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has always been a screamer, but...
Today, May 10, marks the first day of what the Obama campaign is calling its "Vote For...
You may have thought your prom night went badly, but Marche Taylor,...
Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination...
Leave it to the tone deaf GOP to find a way of attaching themselves to this election...
As a lawyer might say (OK, I am one), I have no personal knowledge of whether John or...
At the same time that former West Wingers...
First of all, you moms are already Hot Chicks! We want you to embrace...
She needs some time with a shrink to deal with her lying problem, but if the Dems win as big as people are saying they will (and I don't believe they will) -- huge majorities in both Houses and the White House -- the last thing they need is someone as incompetent as she is to take over the Senate.
She has Kerryitis -- she loses where losing is nearly impossible. posted 05/13/2008 at 06:39:22