May 18, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
Phaedrus21
Recent comments by this user
Romney Poses Bigger Threat to Obama than McCain
Electing Sweetie
"Baby" is sexist. posted 05/17/2008 at 09:40:18
Back on January 13 you wrote:
"Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/we-deserve-what-we-get_b_81288.html
"Why not", indeed. What's changed? Is it that back in January it still looked like Hillary was going to win the nomination? It was okay back in January to throw a bone to the "new boy" because, after all, he wasn't really a serious threat to Hillary?
As long as the (black/woman/Latino/homosexual) doesn't actually threaten our interests, let's encourage them and say "Isn't diversity wonderful!!". But once he starts to win, it's back to "boy". posted 05/17/2008 at 09:38:54
"Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/we-deserve-what-we-get_b_81288.html
"Why not", indeed. What's changed? Is it that back in January it still looked like Hillary was going to win the nomination? It was okay back in January to throw a bone to the "new boy" because, after all, he wasn't really a serious threat to Hillary?
As long as the (black/woman/Latino/homosexual) doesn't actually threaten our interests, let's encourage them and say "Isn't diversity wonderful!!". But once he starts to win, it's back to "boy". posted 05/17/2008 at 09:38:54
It's a shame that your candidate lost. I can tell you are upset.
Trashing the Democratic nominee, however, is a sure-fire way of ensuring that that we end up with a Supreme Court that takes away all those rights that NARAL thinks are so important. posted 05/17/2008 at 06:55:51
Trashing the Democratic nominee, however, is a sure-fire way of ensuring that that we end up with a Supreme Court that takes away all those rights that NARAL thinks are so important. posted 05/17/2008 at 06:55:51
Exclusive Video: McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against It...
It's a shame the 2000 McCain isn't running. He seemed like a decent sort of guy.
I think a big problem is that the 2000 McCain isn't all that far from Obama on a lot of issues. Obama is a pragmatist. So was the 2000 McCain. Back then McCain acknowledged that it was a complex world and that ideology wouldn't solve most problems.
However, giving the voters a choice between the 2000 McCain and Obama highlights the "age issue". Personally, I think that McCain has another 20 years as a politician left in him (and probably another 10 years on top of that once he retires). But polls have repeatedly shown that the American public has a bigger problem with electing an older man than with electing a black man. If they can't tell any difference between the two of them on approach to the issue, McCain loses on age. posted 05/16/2008 at 19:43:37
I think a big problem is that the 2000 McCain isn't all that far from Obama on a lot of issues. Obama is a pragmatist. So was the 2000 McCain. Back then McCain acknowledged that it was a complex world and that ideology wouldn't solve most problems.
However, giving the voters a choice between the 2000 McCain and Obama highlights the "age issue". Personally, I think that McCain has another 20 years as a politician left in him (and probably another 10 years on top of that once he retires). But polls have repeatedly shown that the American public has a bigger problem with electing an older man than with electing a black man. If they can't tell any difference between the two of them on approach to the issue, McCain loses on age. posted 05/16/2008 at 19:43:37
Countdown to Colbert: Any Advice?
You can't get that all in. There just isn't enough time.
The best you are going to be able to accomplish is getting the cover of your book shown to a few million people. That's not bad!!!
Don't try to compete with Colbert. He seems confrontational, but remember that his primary goal is to entertain. Let him have his fun, be a good sport and and don't get sore if you don't actually get much of a chance to talk about what YOU want to talk about. posted 05/15/2008 at 17:37:13
The best you are going to be able to accomplish is getting the cover of your book shown to a few million people. That's not bad!!!
Don't try to compete with Colbert. He seems confrontational, but remember that his primary goal is to entertain. Let him have his fun, be a good sport and and don't get sore if you don't actually get much of a chance to talk about what YOU want to talk about. posted 05/15/2008 at 17:37:13
Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers
You don't use fear as a negotiating tool.
You don't use threats (because they have no fear of threats).
You don't use violence (because they have no fear of violence).
What's left? Negotiating without threats or violence.
Obama. posted 05/15/2008 at 13:45:27
You don't use threats (because they have no fear of threats).
You don't use violence (because they have no fear of violence).
What's left? Negotiating without threats or violence.
Obama. posted 05/15/2008 at 13:45:27
I'm not sure how it can be said that "He didn't compare Obama to Nazi Appeasers". It seems pretty clear to me.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals". That's clearly a reference to Obama.
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland". He's talking in the historical context of World War II.
"We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement". A clear linkage between the belief in negotiation and "appeasement".
He DID compare Obama to Nazi appeasers. No twisting necessary. posted 05/15/2008 at 09:45:18
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals". That's clearly a reference to Obama.
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland". He's talking in the historical context of World War II.
"We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement". A clear linkage between the belief in negotiation and "appeasement".
He DID compare Obama to Nazi appeasers. No twisting necessary. posted 05/15/2008 at 09:45:18
Olbermann To Bush: "This War Is Not About You...Shut The Hell Up!"
As I watched it I was thinking "In other countries, people get shot for saying these kinds of things". posted 05/15/2008 at 00:49:01
Obama Using Cross Flyer In Kentucky
I don't like the "theocracy" aspects, either. However, the opposition has made the "Obama is a Muslim" an issue. He has to do something to counteract that misrepresentation. posted 05/14/2008 at 20:00:42
Kerry Swiftboater: "We Will Attack Obama Viciously"
If he hasn't done so already, Obama needs to put together a "strike-team" of lawyers that will immediately respond every time a new "vicious" attack ad appears to make sure every single letter of the law was followed. These attackers need to be held **personally** accountable for what they are doing. If they are in compliance with the law, fine. If there's anything funny going on with respect to how the ads were financed, they should know that THEY will be personally prosecuted and sent to jail. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:11:38
Running ads against these people won't make a difference. They have no shame.
What needs to be done is holding these people **personally** legally accountable for what they are doing. If they choose to run a "vicious" attack ad, they should know that a team of Democratic lawyers is going to immediately jump on them to make sure that every single letter of the law was followed. If they are in compliance with the law, fine. If there's anything funny going on with respect to how the ads were financed, they should know that THEY will be personally prosecuted and sent to jail. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:08:35
What needs to be done is holding these people **personally** legally accountable for what they are doing. If they choose to run a "vicious" attack ad, they should know that a team of Democratic lawyers is going to immediately jump on them to make sure that every single letter of the law was followed. If they are in compliance with the law, fine. If there's anything funny going on with respect to how the ads were financed, they should know that THEY will be personally prosecuted and sent to jail. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:08:35
Does Obama Even Need The Jewish Vote?
This doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
If Obama is sympathetic to Palestinian grievances that doesn't mean he is necessarily "anti-Israel".
He can be supportive of issues important to Jews and still be willing to talk to Ahmadinejad.
It's this "you're either with us or against us" mentality that has predominated for years. Obama might be the one who move us past that paradigm. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:59:47
If Obama is sympathetic to Palestinian grievances that doesn't mean he is necessarily "anti-Israel".
He can be supportive of issues important to Jews and still be willing to talk to Ahmadinejad.
It's this "you're either with us or against us" mentality that has predominated for years. Obama might be the one who move us past that paradigm. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:59:47
How Obama WON Tuesday
I don't think Childers won in Mississippi because of Obama's "coat tails". As a matter of fact, Childers tried his best to distance himself from the "accusation" that he was endorsed by Obama.
The Mississippi election is significant more that Childers won **in spite** of being linked to Obama (and Jeremiah Wright). The message that sends to the GOP is that hanging Reverend Wright around Obama's neck in the general election will not work. The Wright "scandal" is past its prime in May. By November, it will be completely stale and useless.
The GOP has probably just lost their most promising weapon against Obama. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:23:23
The Mississippi election is significant more that Childers won **in spite** of being linked to Obama (and Jeremiah Wright). The message that sends to the GOP is that hanging Reverend Wright around Obama's neck in the general election will not work. The Wright "scandal" is past its prime in May. By November, it will be completely stale and useless.
The GOP has probably just lost their most promising weapon against Obama. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:23:23
Mississippi Win Gives House Dems Three Victories In A Row
There are some comments below about Obama's "coat tails" with respect to the Mississippi District 1 race. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Childers did as much as possible to distance himself from the Obama/Wright "God Damn America" ads that Greg Davis was putting on TV. Childers went as far as to deny that Obama had ever said anything nice about him.
The story isn't that Obama helped Childers win. Childers was favored to win. The story is that trying to associate the candidate with Jeremiah Wright's comments didn't work. It may have hurt Childers, but it didn't cause a massive loss of support even in the Deep South.
The implication for this Fall is that the GOP may rethink their strategy to hang Wright/Ayers around Obama's neck. It didn't work in May when the story was relatively fresh. Five months from now the story will be even more stale.
The GOP may well have just lost their most powerful weapon against Obama in the general election. posted 05/14/2008 at 07:46:42
Childers did as much as possible to distance himself from the Obama/Wright "God Damn America" ads that Greg Davis was putting on TV. Childers went as far as to deny that Obama had ever said anything nice about him.
The story isn't that Obama helped Childers win. Childers was favored to win. The story is that trying to associate the candidate with Jeremiah Wright's comments didn't work. It may have hurt Childers, but it didn't cause a massive loss of support even in the Deep South.
The implication for this Fall is that the GOP may rethink their strategy to hang Wright/Ayers around Obama's neck. It didn't work in May when the story was relatively fresh. Five months from now the story will be even more stale.
The GOP may well have just lost their most powerful weapon against Obama in the general election. posted 05/14/2008 at 07:46:42
Bush: I Gave Up Golf For The Troops
I despise the man as much as the next left-winger, but let's not get carried away.
All he's really saying is that he didn't want to give Keith Olbermann a chance to run side-by-side videos of the daily chaos in Iraq with him playing golf. It's an attempt to deny a political weapon to the Democrats.
His decision is cynical. But even I don't believe that he really considers his giving up golf is equivalent to people dying. posted 05/14/2008 at 07:58:29
All he's really saying is that he didn't want to give Keith Olbermann a chance to run side-by-side videos of the daily chaos in Iraq with him playing golf. It's an attempt to deny a political weapon to the Democrats.
His decision is cynical. But even I don't believe that he really considers his giving up golf is equivalent to people dying. posted 05/14/2008 at 07:58:29
Barack Obama and Israel: More GOP Lies
I don't usually like the technique of calling on a politician to "reject and denounce" something that someone else has said. Most of the time when this tactic is used the politician clearly had no relationship with the controversial statement.
This case is different. These two men are obviously serving as attack dogs for John McCain. Combine McCain's "Hamas comments" with the idea that these two men "coincidentally"came up with the EXACT SAME MISINTERPRETATION reveals the presence of a coordinated effort. Someone is feeding these talking points to members of Congress. Since the obvious beneficiary is the McCain campaign, they have to be at the top of our list of suspects.
McCain should be called upon to "reject and denounce" these comments. posted 05/14/2008 at 08:09:12
This case is different. These two men are obviously serving as attack dogs for John McCain. Combine McCain's "Hamas comments" with the idea that these two men "coincidentally"came up with the EXACT SAME MISINTERPRETATION reveals the presence of a coordinated effort. Someone is feeding these talking points to members of Congress. Since the obvious beneficiary is the McCain campaign, they have to be at the top of our list of suspects.
McCain should be called upon to "reject and denounce" these comments. posted 05/14/2008 at 08:09:12
MoveOn Picks Winning Obama Commercial For General Election
I'm sure sometimes Obama feels the same way.
But he won't do it.
That's what makes him worth voting for. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:15:37
But he won't do it.
That's what makes him worth voting for. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:15:37
Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
It's a good thing nobody in the press chose to run with that "Reverend Wright" story.
That might have hurt him. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:07:39
That might have hurt him. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:07:39
Once those six states have voted, will it be settled?
Didn't think so. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:03:47
Didn't think so. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:03:47
New Group With Clinton Ties Pushes A 'Dream Ticket'
Hillary as VP would be "Dick Cheney's Third Term".
I'm not referring to policies -- I'm referring to style. Dick Cheney has done more than any other Veep in history to strengthen the power of the office. He's done this at the expense of both the President and the Congress because they were either unable or unwilling to stand up to him.
I'm sure that Hillary would love to rule from behind the scenes in the same way. She must not be allowed that opportunity. It would be bad enough having her as President, but at least she would be visible and accountable. If she becomes another Dick Cheney, she'll be controlling the country from the background, with no formal accountability. posted 05/11/2008 at 19:20:33
I'm not referring to policies -- I'm referring to style. Dick Cheney has done more than any other Veep in history to strengthen the power of the office. He's done this at the expense of both the President and the Congress because they were either unable or unwilling to stand up to him.
I'm sure that Hillary would love to rule from behind the scenes in the same way. She must not be allowed that opportunity. It would be bad enough having her as President, but at least she would be visible and accountable. If she becomes another Dick Cheney, she'll be controlling the country from the background, with no formal accountability. posted 05/11/2008 at 19:20:33
Clinton: Obama Not Winning Over "Hard-Working Americans, White Americans"
I don't think she's saying non-white's don't count--Just that they are a "given" for the Democratic Party.
She's saying "We need the white vote and the non-white vote. We'll get the non-white vote no matter who we nominate. So we should focus on who can get the white vote." posted 05/08/2008 at 10:14:07
She's saying "We need the white vote and the non-white vote. We'll get the non-white vote no matter who we nominate. So we should focus on who can get the white vote." posted 05/08/2008 at 10:14:07
Laura Bush Discusses Jenna's Wedding During Myanmar Press Conference
Don't blame Laura Bush. Blame the country. This is exactly the kind of First Lady that voters said they wanted.
The voters wanted a First Lady who would stay in the background and not have strong political opinions. They wanted a housewife who would be more concerned with her daughter's wedding than a tragedy half-a-world away.
It's okay with the voters if she supports something non-controversial, like promoting reading. But mostly the country wanted a First Lady who would stand there and look adoringly at her husband.
If the voters wanted something different, they should have elected somebody different. posted 05/06/2008 at 08:37:17
The voters wanted a First Lady who would stay in the background and not have strong political opinions. They wanted a housewife who would be more concerned with her daughter's wedding than a tragedy half-a-world away.
It's okay with the voters if she supports something non-controversial, like promoting reading. But mostly the country wanted a First Lady who would stand there and look adoringly at her husband.
If the voters wanted something different, they should have elected somebody different. posted 05/06/2008 at 08:37:17
Stark Contrasts
"When the evil arabic bad guys take over a town - they line up their prisoners and as the camera pans away the Strong Man leader says "finish the job boys." The screen crackles with gunfire just off screen."
These are two totally separate scenes.
In the scene where the town was taken over, "evil arabic bad guys" (your phrasing) were stopped by Iron Man before they could massacre the civilians.
The character who said "finish the job, boys" line was Obadiah Stane, an American. That scene occurred much later in the movie. He's ordering the execution of the "evil arabic bad guys".
An American orders a massacre and an Arab gets blamed for it in the media.
I'm sure there's a moral in there somewhere. posted 05/04/2008 at 20:58:09
These are two totally separate scenes.
In the scene where the town was taken over, "evil arabic bad guys" (your phrasing) were stopped by Iron Man before they could massacre the civilians.
The character who said "finish the job, boys" line was Obadiah Stane, an American. That scene occurred much later in the movie. He's ordering the execution of the "evil arabic bad guys".
An American orders a massacre and an Arab gets blamed for it in the media.
I'm sure there's a moral in there somewhere. posted 05/04/2008 at 20:58:09
Carville: If Hillary Gave Obama "One Of Her Cojones, They'd Both Have Two"
I'm pretty sure that at least two of them used to belong to Bill. She probably keeps them in a jar locked in a desk drawer. posted 05/04/2008 at 14:16:44
Not to mention that the winner of that race was "Big Brown".
(Lord, I'm sorry for that one ....) posted 05/04/2008 at 14:15:24
(Lord, I'm sorry for that one ....) posted 05/04/2008 at 14:15:24
Clinton Defends 'Obliterate Iran' Comment, Obama Calls It Bush-Style 'Cowboy Diplomacy'
It's something that people do when they are trying to think of the next thing they are going to say. Notice that she doesn't do it when she has a scripted answer or when she uses a portion of her stump speech to answer the question.
With Hillary, it's "You know.." With Obama, it's "Look..., uhh..."
Part of the reason that they do it rather than just pausing for a moment to collect their thoughts is because pausing to think about something is seen being "indecisive". posted 05/04/2008 at 14:06:55
With Hillary, it's "You know.." With Obama, it's "Look..., uhh..."
Part of the reason that they do it rather than just pausing for a moment to collect their thoughts is because pausing to think about something is seen being "indecisive". posted 05/04/2008 at 14:06:55
Troll. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:17:37
It wouldn't make a bit of difference what Obama would do. The Israelis would ensure that there wouldn't be anybody left in Iran to talk to.
That's why we don't need to inject ourselves into the middle of the situation. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:11:38
That's why we don't need to inject ourselves into the middle of the situation. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:11:38
Gas tax. posted 05/04/2008 at 13:00:30
Israel has their own nuclear deterrence. We don't need to inject ourselves into the situation, especially since Israel hasn't asked us to.
This is the worst kind of pandering. She wants a few thousand Jewish votes, so she's threatening to kill 70 million people in order to get them.
And, no, this comment isn't anti-Semitic. It's describing exactly what she's doing. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:57:08
This is the worst kind of pandering. She wants a few thousand Jewish votes, so she's threatening to kill 70 million people in order to get them.
And, no, this comment isn't anti-Semitic. It's describing exactly what she's doing. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:57:08
Was it my imagination, but did it sound like Clinton was looking back fondly at the "good old days" of the Cold War? posted 05/04/2008 at 12:43:05
"Do we want to be at nuclear war with Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia, or do we want a region with five nuclear powers?"
If our two options are:
1) Millions of innocent people burned to death in a nuclear holocaust, or
2) Five countries with nuclear weapons locked into a stalemate of mutually-assured destruction similar to our own Cold War
I'm pretty sure which option most people would choose. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:38:41
If our two options are:
1) Millions of innocent people burned to death in a nuclear holocaust, or
2) Five countries with nuclear weapons locked into a stalemate of mutually-assured destruction similar to our own Cold War
I'm pretty sure which option most people would choose. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:38:41
Howard Dean On Fox News Sunday: Your Coverage Is "Shockingly Biased" (VIDEO)
The rules for the General Election are set in the Constitution. The President is elected by representatives of the States ("electors") who are chosen by the citizens of that State. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were no provisions made for people who might be U.S. citizens who were not also citizens of a particular State.
The rules for Primary elections are set by the political parties. The voters are actually picking delegates to attend a meeting where the Party will decide who they will nominate for President. The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, so the parties can decide for themselves who gets to help pick delegates.
So, the political parties are free to say "All U.S. Citizens can take part in helping to choose the delegates that will go to the Convention". That's why Guam and Puerto Rico can vote in primaries. However, the Constitution says "Only the States can send electors to pick the President". That's why Guam and Puerto Rico don't get to vote in the General Election. They aren't States. posted 05/04/2008 at 14:31:50
The rules for Primary elections are set by the political parties. The voters are actually picking delegates to attend a meeting where the Party will decide who they will nominate for President. The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, so the parties can decide for themselves who gets to help pick delegates.
So, the political parties are free to say "All U.S. Citizens can take part in helping to choose the delegates that will go to the Convention". That's why Guam and Puerto Rico can vote in primaries. However, the Constitution says "Only the States can send electors to pick the President". That's why Guam and Puerto Rico don't get to vote in the General Election. They aren't States. posted 05/04/2008 at 14:31:50
Sunday Roundup
I'm sure none of us can think of any examples of Moses or Jesus reacting angrily to a situation.
*cough* Golden Calf *cough*
*cough* Money changers *cough* posted 05/04/2008 at 19:02:26
*cough* Golden Calf *cough*
*cough* Money changers *cough* posted 05/04/2008 at 19:02:26
Clinton Camp Defends Gas Plan: She Doesn't Need To Listen To Experts
It would also help Hillary Clinton.
Oops. posted 05/01/2008 at 15:10:57
Oops. posted 05/01/2008 at 15:10:57
US troop deaths hit 7-month high in Iraq
It's been said before...
If the mainstream media had done as much investigating in the run-up to war in Iraq as the do to the Jeremiah Wright "story", these people would still be alive.
Unforgivable. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:12:14
If the mainstream media had done as much investigating in the run-up to war in Iraq as the do to the Jeremiah Wright "story", these people would still be alive.
Unforgivable. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:12:14
Fox News Lincoln-Douglas Graphic Shows Frederick Douglass
Just "history". posted 04/30/2008 at 06:07:43
Clinton Hits Obama For Opposing Gas Tax Holiday
Okay. So we cut 18.4 cents worth of tax off each gallon of gas.
Does anyone really believe that means the price of gas will go down 18.4 cents per gallon? Sure, it will go down 5-10 cents, but the oil companies will simply pocket the rest. posted 04/28/2008 at 14:15:07
Does anyone really believe that means the price of gas will go down 18.4 cents per gallon? Sure, it will go down 5-10 cents, but the oil companies will simply pocket the rest. posted 04/28/2008 at 14:15:07
Jeremiah Wright At National Press Club: Watch Video
He was doing so well!
The Moyers interview went well.
The NAACP lecture went well.
Why did he have to screw it up now?
Arrrgghhhh!!!! posted 04/28/2008 at 13:23:59
The Moyers interview went well.
The NAACP lecture went well.
Why did he have to screw it up now?
Arrrgghhhh!!!! posted 04/28/2008 at 13:23:59
Obama Stars In Mississippi Attack Ad: Watch Video
I sent a letter to the editor of the Jackson, Mississippi "Clarion Ledger" this morning.
You can, too.
Go to http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION02 posted 04/28/2008 at 13:29:21
You can, too.
Go to http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION02 posted 04/28/2008 at 13:29:21
McCain calls Obama insensitive to poor people
"Old man yells at cloud".
From above them. posted 04/28/2008 at 06:02:39
From above them. posted 04/28/2008 at 06:02:39
He's been cross-posting this comment (including misspellings) on multiple forums. He's a troll. posted 04/28/2008 at 06:01:45
The Mea Culpas Didn't Come
"Tucker made the perfect spokesmodel for advocates of the death penalty. She admitted to a horrible murder, but she was such an attractive murderer."
Huh? posted 04/27/2008 at 21:51:17
Huh? posted 04/27/2008 at 21:51:17
Miley Cyrus Bare In Vanity Fair: Tells Fans She's "Embarrassed"
Isn't she underage? posted 04/27/2008 at 12:39:06
TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads
She's a recovering from drug addiction. Whether you agree with the politics of her husband or not, making fun of someone's illness isn't appropriate. posted 04/27/2008 at 12:49:23
Just "American".
No qualifiers needed. posted 04/27/2008 at 12:47:12
No qualifiers needed. posted 04/27/2008 at 12:47:12
This blogger has a tendency to mix up actual quotes with his own paraphrasing. Unfortunately, he doesn't do anything to make it clear which is which. We're supposed to figure it out from the context.
How about using italics to represent your paraphrasing? posted 04/27/2008 at 12:13:33
How about using italics to represent your paraphrasing? posted 04/27/2008 at 12:13:33
"perpetual Klonopin daze"?
That's a bit too much... posted 04/27/2008 at 12:08:03
That's a bit too much... posted 04/27/2008 at 12:08:03
McCain's Nonsense About Hamas: Consider the Bush Record
It would be terrible to have a President who is liked and respected by our enemies. posted 04/26/2008 at 18:41:43
Jeremiah Wright and Psalm 137
Pure sophistry.
Without a doubt, the perpetrators of 9/11 see THEMSELVES as victims, just as the exiled Hebrews saw themselves as victims. Whether WE agree or disagree with their defining themselves as victims is irrelevant. They justified to themselves that their anger was righteous and that it gave them the license to kill.
Wright's sermon was a warning for us not to fall into the trap. We should not define ourselves as victims as a result of 9/11 and use that as an excuse to act in ways that are immoral (bashing babies heads).
Why not? Because then the OTHER SIDE sees themselves as victims with the right to commit heinous acts. And it goes back and forth.
THAT is the lesson of the sermon. And the lesson was not learned.
Prove it to yourself. Google "abu ghraib". posted 04/26/2008 at 18:34:35
Without a doubt, the perpetrators of 9/11 see THEMSELVES as victims, just as the exiled Hebrews saw themselves as victims. Whether WE agree or disagree with their defining themselves as victims is irrelevant. They justified to themselves that their anger was righteous and that it gave them the license to kill.
Wright's sermon was a warning for us not to fall into the trap. We should not define ourselves as victims as a result of 9/11 and use that as an excuse to act in ways that are immoral (bashing babies heads).
Why not? Because then the OTHER SIDE sees themselves as victims with the right to commit heinous acts. And it goes back and forth.
THAT is the lesson of the sermon. And the lesson was not learned.
Prove it to yourself. Google "abu ghraib". posted 04/26/2008 at 18:34:35
Clinton Challenges Obama To Debate Without A Moderator, Lincoln-Douglas Style
Hillary wants to do it "Rail Splitter" style!!!
Giggity giggity giggity ....alll riight!!! posted 04/26/2008 at 21:50:35
Giggity giggity giggity ....alll riight!!! posted 04/26/2008 at 21:50:35
The most aggressive (read: obnoxious) person wins this type of debate because he/she will be constantly interrupting and talking over top of their opponent.
We all know who is the more polite of the two candidates. Unfortunately, the modern audiences interpret politeness and a willingness to listen to other viewpoints as "weakness". posted 04/26/2008 at 19:31:43
We all know who is the more polite of the two candidates. Unfortunately, the modern audiences interpret politeness and a willingness to listen to other viewpoints as "weakness". posted 04/26/2008 at 19:31:43
The Lincoln-Douglas debates worked because the debaters knew they were speaking to an audience of readers. Their words were recorded on paper and distributed to newspapers. The debates were read by persons who would spend hours working their way through the text. This type of debate favored rational thought, nuance and reason.
The same format today will be broadcast live with "Monday Night Football" graphics and theme music. The candidates can count on their words being taken out of context and spliced into 5 second sound bites that will be played over and over. This type of debate format favors the most aggressive, most obnoxious and least principled participant.
I wonder why she suggested it? posted 04/26/2008 at 19:27:56
The same format today will be broadcast live with "Monday Night Football" graphics and theme music. The candidates can count on their words being taken out of context and spliced into 5 second sound bites that will be played over and over. This type of debate format favors the most aggressive, most obnoxious and least principled participant.
I wonder why she suggested it? posted 04/26/2008 at 19:27:56
Can Hillary Really Win?
I think the gloves are coming off when starts running against McCain. But Hillary is a member of his own Party. There was a (sorry for the phrase) "gentleman's agreement" that members of the same party would not try to destroy each other.
Of course, Hillary has broken that agreement. That doesn't mean he has to as well, especially since he has such a large mathematical advantage.
I think that once he's running against a Republican, however, there will be blood. posted 04/27/2008 at 08:59:34
Of course, Hillary has broken that agreement. That doesn't mean he has to as well, especially since he has such a large mathematical advantage.
I think that once he's running against a Republican, however, there will be blood. posted 04/27/2008 at 08:59:34
How does Hillary win? She keeps doing what's she's doing all the way up to the Convention.
She divides the Party and creates so much animosity that neither candidate can beat McCain. Party leaders start to panic.
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket--with her as President. She argues that Obama can run in 2016 (when he is 54 years old). Eight years as VP will remove any questions about experience, patriotism, etc. She argues that with the two of them working together, the Dems will likely keep the White House for 16 continuous years. Party leaders pressure Obama to accept the offer to become VP, even though HE is ahead in the delegate count.
Scenario 1: Obama takes her up on the offer. Together, they rout McCain. Hillary becomes President.
Scenario 2: Obama doesn't accept the offer. McCain wins in 2008 but is too old for a second term in 2012. Hillary says "I told you so about Obama" and wins the White House in 2012. Hillary becomes President. posted 04/26/2008 at 16:36:22
She divides the Party and creates so much animosity that neither candidate can beat McCain. Party leaders start to panic.
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket--with her as President. She argues that Obama can run in 2016 (when he is 54 years old). Eight years as VP will remove any questions about experience, patriotism, etc. She argues that with the two of them working together, the Dems will likely keep the White House for 16 continuous years. Party leaders pressure Obama to accept the offer to become VP, even though HE is ahead in the delegate count.
Scenario 1: Obama takes her up on the offer. Together, they rout McCain. Hillary becomes President.
Scenario 2: Obama doesn't accept the offer. McCain wins in 2008 but is too old for a second term in 2012. Hillary says "I told you so about Obama" and wins the White House in 2012. Hillary becomes President. posted 04/26/2008 at 16:36:22
Why Is It So Quiet After the Moyers-Wright Interview?
He distanced himself from the words but didn't "reject and denounce" the person.
I think that's called "Character". I haven't seen it for a while in a U.S. politician, so I'll have to check on that. posted 04/26/2008 at 17:05:33
I think that's called "Character". I haven't seen it for a while in a U.S. politician, so I'll have to check on that. posted 04/26/2008 at 17:05:33
Thank you for waiting. Dr. Freud will see you now... posted 04/26/2008 at 15:31:04
I don't think he's overly cautious so much as he's reluctant to go on the attack against a fellow Democrat. Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment:
"Republican shall not attack Republican"
He's already got the nomination mathematically sewn up. He doesn't need to destroy Clinton. I suspect, however, that he's going to be much more aggressive when he's going head-to-head with McCain. posted 04/26/2008 at 15:14:52
"Republican shall not attack Republican"
He's already got the nomination mathematically sewn up. He doesn't need to destroy Clinton. I suspect, however, that he's going to be much more aggressive when he's going head-to-head with McCain. posted 04/26/2008 at 15:14:52
The way it's being spun (spinned?) is by parsing Wright's comment about "[Senator Obama] says what he has to say as a politician" to mean "Obama secretly agrees with me but has to lie to reassure whitey".
An interview about "sound bites being taken out of context" is being misrepresented by taking sound bites out of context. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:31:46
An interview about "sound bites being taken out of context" is being misrepresented by taking sound bites out of context. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:31:46
Moyers asked a question and waited politely until the person gave a complete answer.
That's the way it is done when an interview is an attempt to understand the person being interviewed. We're just so used to attacks and spin masquerading as legitimate journalism that we don't recognize real reporting when we see it. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:19:56
That's the way it is done when an interview is an attempt to understand the person being interviewed. We're just so used to attacks and spin masquerading as legitimate journalism that we don't recognize real reporting when we see it. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:19:56
I'm puzzled as well. I woke up this morning thinking that every other story would be about the Moyers interview. Where are they? It's too much for the race-baiters to admit that they were wrong, but the silence is deafening. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:15:41
"...we are already experiencing what a dictatorship feels like. Our votes don't count. Obama has scammed the Democratic Party and taken it from the white working class..."
What word am I looking for to describe these kinds of statements? Hmmm....It's on the tip of my tongue.... posted 04/26/2008 at 14:12:35
What word am I looking for to describe these kinds of statements? Hmmm....It's on the tip of my tongue.... posted 04/26/2008 at 14:12:35
Michigan: Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon
None of the candidates had their names taken off the Florida ballot because the deadline for doing so had passed by the time Florida was penalized by the Democratic Party for moving their primary.
In Michigan, all of the candidates except Hillary (and I think Kucinich) had their names removed from the ballot. Mostly they did it to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire voters. Hillary was never quite clear as to why she left her name on the ballot, despite having signed an agreement that she would not take part in the Michigan primary. posted 04/26/2008 at 16:57:16
In Michigan, all of the candidates except Hillary (and I think Kucinich) had their names removed from the ballot. Mostly they did it to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire voters. Hillary was never quite clear as to why she left her name on the ballot, despite having signed an agreement that she would not take part in the Michigan primary. posted 04/26/2008 at 16:57:16
The Education of Jeremiah Wright
Click on Mr. Hutchinson's bio and check out his list of previous blogs. Do you see a pattern? posted 04/26/2008 at 11:22:33
Party Leaders To Hear Florida, Michigan Delegate Challenges
The argument above is based upon the idea that giving Hillary a net 46 delegate increase would not change the results, so....why not do it? The answer is, because it COULD change the results.
There are many superdelegates who are politicians. They don't want to vote against the eventual nominee, especially if it's Clinton. She has a history of punishing disloyalty.
There's still a chance that Hillary can beg, bully or bribe the remaining superdelegates to put her "over the top". It's VERY unlikely, but it's still mathematically possible.
The closer the delegate count, the easier it will be to convince the uncommitted superdelegates that she has a chance. Obama can't risk that when he's already pretty much got it won already by following the rules. posted 04/26/2008 at 12:35:31
There are many superdelegates who are politicians. They don't want to vote against the eventual nominee, especially if it's Clinton. She has a history of punishing disloyalty.
There's still a chance that Hillary can beg, bully or bribe the remaining superdelegates to put her "over the top". It's VERY unlikely, but it's still mathematically possible.
The closer the delegate count, the easier it will be to convince the uncommitted superdelegates that she has a chance. Obama can't risk that when he's already pretty much got it won already by following the rules. posted 04/26/2008 at 12:35:31
Chris Matthews vs. Jimmy McNulty
He became disenchanted with Obama after he decided that the "bitter" comments were offensive to the working people of Pennsylvania. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:23:30
Hillary Clinton Supporters -- The Global Warming Deniers of Democratic Politics?
Remember...like a million years ago...at the end of that debate when she said she was honored to be sharing the stage with Obama and she knew that whatever happened America would be all right?
That was awesome. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:37:12
That was awesome. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:37:12
Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton
Actually, I don't see anything in his Bio that supports this assertion.
I also see other posts he's written that talk about Clinton's problems.
We HAVE had postings on HuffPo that are pro-Clinton spin by partisans posing as neutrals, but you're going to need better evidence that this article is one of them. posted 04/25/2008 at 07:11:57
I also see other posts he's written that talk about Clinton's problems.
We HAVE had postings on HuffPo that are pro-Clinton spin by partisans posing as neutrals, but you're going to need better evidence that this article is one of them. posted 04/25/2008 at 07:11:57
The thing that gets me is I'm looking at Google News this morning and every story is "Indiana is critical" and "Everything hinges on Indiana". What happened to North Carolina?
In the run-up, everyone expected Hillary Clinton to easily win Pennsylvania. Everyone expects Obama to easily win North Carolina.
Hillary DOES win Pennsylvania, as expected, and now the media is saying Obama has lost the campaign. However, Obama is expected to win North Carolina by a large margin and they are acting as if the state somehow "doesn't count". Why is it "everything hinges on Indiana" and not "everything hinges on North Carolina"?
I'm sure that some of this is simply because Indiana is expected to be closer and the media will sell more stories about an exciting race than a boring one. But doesn't some of this seem like a double-standard? posted 04/25/2008 at 07:04:29
In the run-up, everyone expected Hillary Clinton to easily win Pennsylvania. Everyone expects Obama to easily win North Carolina.
Hillary DOES win Pennsylvania, as expected, and now the media is saying Obama has lost the campaign. However, Obama is expected to win North Carolina by a large margin and they are acting as if the state somehow "doesn't count". Why is it "everything hinges on Indiana" and not "everything hinges on North Carolina"?
I'm sure that some of this is simply because Indiana is expected to be closer and the media will sell more stories about an exciting race than a boring one. But doesn't some of this seem like a double-standard? posted 04/25/2008 at 07:04:29
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean May Intervene In Dem Primary
I don't particularly like Clinton, either. I voted for Obama during the primary. I want to see him as President in 2008.
I'm just trying to read Hillary's mind. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:57:15
I'm just trying to read Hillary's mind. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:57:15
I agree that she can't beat McCain by herself. Too many negatives.
However, if Obama agrees to run as her vice-President, he can tell his supporters "A vote for Hillary is a vote for Obama in 2016".
She can beat McCain if Obama helps her beat McCain. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:52:49
However, if Obama agrees to run as her vice-President, he can tell his supporters "A vote for Hillary is a vote for Obama in 2016".
She can beat McCain if Obama helps her beat McCain. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:52:49
No argument from me. I think Obama will be a great President.
I'm just trying to think of some rationale that would explain why Hillary is staying in the race after she's already lost. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:44:41
I'm just trying to think of some rationale that would explain why Hillary is staying in the race after she's already lost. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:44:41
I agree that the winner (Obama) shouldn't HAVE to consider the VP spot. But I could see this scenario as part of Clinton's strategy to circumvent the delegate count.
If Obama doesn't go for it and loses to McCain, Clinton can run against a 76-year old McCain in 2012...all the while saying "I told you so about Obama".
Either way, she wins. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:33:13
If Obama doesn't go for it and loses to McCain, Clinton can run against a 76-year old McCain in 2012...all the while saying "I told you so about Obama".
Either way, she wins. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:33:13
Here's a scenario:
Hillary creates a situation where there is so much animosity that supporters of Clinton won't vote for Obama and vice-versa. It looks to everyone like McCain is going to win the general election against a divided and disillusioned Democratic Party.
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket -- with her at the top and Obama as vice-President. Her argument goes something like this:
* A joint ticket will reunite the Party and allow them to beat McCain.
* She will serve as President and run again in 2012.
* Most people like Obama, but his biggest negative is that he is relatively unexperienced. If he serves as vice-President for 8 years, he will only be 54 years old in 2016. At that point, he can run for President. His 8 years as vice-President will remove any arguments about youth and inexperience.
* This will provide the Democratic Party with continuous control of the White House for 16 years.
The question might come up "Why not have Obama as President and Clinton as vice-President?". She will refuse to run as vice-President. She will be too old in 2016 to make another run for the Presidency. Obama won't want her as vice-President because
A) He's always going to have to watch his own back when she's around
B) She's going to have Bill tag along and he won't be able to resist the opportunity to meddle. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:22:14
Hillary creates a situation where there is so much animosity that supporters of Clinton won't vote for Obama and vice-versa. It looks to everyone like McCain is going to win the general election against a divided and disillusioned Democratic Party.
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket -- with her at the top and Obama as vice-President. Her argument goes something like this:
* A joint ticket will reunite the Party and allow them to beat McCain.
* She will serve as President and run again in 2012.
* Most people like Obama, but his biggest negative is that he is relatively unexperienced. If he serves as vice-President for 8 years, he will only be 54 years old in 2016. At that point, he can run for President. His 8 years as vice-President will remove any arguments about youth and inexperience.
* This will provide the Democratic Party with continuous control of the White House for 16 years.
The question might come up "Why not have Obama as President and Clinton as vice-President?". She will refuse to run as vice-President. She will be too old in 2016 to make another run for the Presidency. Obama won't want her as vice-President because
A) He's always going to have to watch his own back when she's around
B) She's going to have Bill tag along and he won't be able to resist the opportunity to meddle. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:22:14
Is This Primary Irreversibly Shredding the Democratic Party? I'm Skeptical.
I think your scenarios have merit, although I would take exception with the assertion that both of them have polarized the party. Obama has been incredibly restrained in attacking Clinton. He's followed the corollary of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment which is "Democrat shalt not attack Democrat".
He could have easily put her away by seizing on the 'sniper' story and running ad-after-ad about how "Hillary is a liar". But he didn't...and now he's being called "weak". posted 04/25/2008 at 07:20:04
He could have easily put her away by seizing on the 'sniper' story and running ad-after-ad about how "Hillary is a liar". But he didn't...and now he's being called "weak". posted 04/25/2008 at 07:20:04
The problem is that there might not be six months left to heal the Party. Even if the superdelegates declare themselves for Obama in early June, she is under no obligation to stop campaigning against him. She can continue tearing down Obama all the way to the convention.
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket -- with her at the top and Obama as vice-President. Her argument goes something like this:
* A joint ticket will reunite the Party and allow them to beat McCain.
* She will serve as President and run again in 2012.
* Most people like Obama, but his biggest negative is that he is relatively unexperienced. If he serves as vice-President for 8 years, he will only be 54 years old in 2016. At that point, he can run for President. His 8 years as vice-President will remove any arguments about youth and inexperience.
* This will provide the Democratic Party with continuous control of the White House for 16 years.
The question might come up "Why not have Obama as President and Clinton as vice-President?". She will refuse to run as vice-President. She will be too old in 2016 to make another run for the Presidency. Obama won't want her as vice-President because
A) He's always going to have to watch his own back when she's around
B) She's going to have Bill tag along and Bill won't be able to resist the opportunity to meddle posted 04/24/2008 at 16:21:23
At the convention, she proposes a joint ticket -- with her at the top and Obama as vice-President. Her argument goes something like this:
* A joint ticket will reunite the Party and allow them to beat McCain.
* She will serve as President and run again in 2012.
* Most people like Obama, but his biggest negative is that he is relatively unexperienced. If he serves as vice-President for 8 years, he will only be 54 years old in 2016. At that point, he can run for President. His 8 years as vice-President will remove any arguments about youth and inexperience.
* This will provide the Democratic Party with continuous control of the White House for 16 years.
The question might come up "Why not have Obama as President and Clinton as vice-President?". She will refuse to run as vice-President. She will be too old in 2016 to make another run for the Presidency. Obama won't want her as vice-President because
A) He's always going to have to watch his own back when she's around
B) She's going to have Bill tag along and Bill won't be able to resist the opportunity to meddle posted 04/24/2008 at 16:21:23
Jenna Bush On Larry King: I "Don't Know" If I'll Vote For A Republican... Laura Bush: I Don't Like The "Pounding" George Gets (VIDEO)
"newddle" has been cutting-and-pasting this "Laura slapped Jenna" thing all over multiple websites and forums (even ones having nothing to do with the interview). posted 04/26/2008 at 08:20:59
Why, To The Mainstream Media, Does Hillary's 9.4 Victory Margin Equal "Double Digits"?
I would take points off of one of my students' exams if they rounded numbers BEFORE doing all the calculations.
But we live in a Humpty-Dumpty world where a number "means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". posted 04/23/2008 at 15:56:40
But we live in a Humpty-Dumpty world where a number "means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". posted 04/23/2008 at 15:56:40
Jeremiah Wright Used In New Ad By North Carolina GOP: Watch Video
One does have to wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Are they trying to reach the 5 or 6 people in the country who haven't ALREADY seen the Reverend Wright clips?
Or is the target really Bev Perdue and Richard Moore? Guilt by association twice-removed? Perdue and Moore know Barack Obama. Barack Obama knows Reverend Wright...
At some point, Kevin Bacon HAS to come into this whole thing. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:33:09
Or is the target really Bev Perdue and Richard Moore? Guilt by association twice-removed? Perdue and Moore know Barack Obama. Barack Obama knows Reverend Wright...
At some point, Kevin Bacon HAS to come into this whole thing. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:33:09
The New York Times' Political Suicide Pact
Sorry, I'm not buying this argument.
When encountering negative ads the vast majority of people DO NOT "seek out new, independent sources of information" such as the editorial page of the New York Times or Mr. Hurowitz's writings. They aren't going to analyze Senator Obama's "bitter" comments through the prism of "What the Matter with Kansas?". They are just going to believe that "Obama hates religious people and guns" because that's what was implied by the ads.
The people who would seek out independent sources are the ones who are least swayed by negative ads to begin with. posted 04/23/2008 at 14:57:28
When encountering negative ads the vast majority of people DO NOT "seek out new, independent sources of information" such as the editorial page of the New York Times or Mr. Hurowitz's writings. They aren't going to analyze Senator Obama's "bitter" comments through the prism of "What the Matter with Kansas?". They are just going to believe that "Obama hates religious people and guns" because that's what was implied by the ads.
The people who would seek out independent sources are the ones who are least swayed by negative ads to begin with. posted 04/23/2008 at 14:57:28
Pennsylvania Primary Results: Latest News, Video
If we get to remove the vote of whatever demographic group that we don't agree with and call what remains "the general public", we can make the results say anything we like. posted 04/23/2008 at 07:04:11
It's actually the psychological benchmark of a "double-digit victory" that is at issue.
Listen for it. You'll be hearing the term thrown around a lot by the Clintons over the next few days. posted 04/23/2008 at 07:02:25
Listen for it. You'll be hearing the term thrown around a lot by the Clintons over the next few days. posted 04/23/2008 at 07:02:25
CNN is spinning like crazy.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/gallery.pa.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Now the narrative is that "Obama can't close the deal".
Mathematically, we're in the SAME situation we were six weeks ago. Nothing has changed except that now Clinton has to win an even LARGER percentage of the vote in the remaining states to move ahead on pledged delegates (the only metric that matters).
Obama "closed the deal" over a month ago. posted 04/23/2008 at 06:50:53
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/gallery.pa.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Now the narrative is that "Obama can't close the deal".
Mathematically, we're in the SAME situation we were six weeks ago. Nothing has changed except that now Clinton has to win an even LARGER percentage of the vote in the remaining states to move ahead on pledged delegates (the only metric that matters).
Obama "closed the deal" over a month ago. posted 04/23/2008 at 06:50:53
Since all votes count the same irregardless of what the voters look like, it's a margin of about 8.5%.
Clinton 1,234,547 54.3%
Obama 1,041,136 45.8%
per the official Pennsylvania Dept of State elections page at 6:37 AM.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ posted 04/23/2008 at 06:38:44
Clinton 1,234,547 54.3%
Obama 1,041,136 45.8%
per the official Pennsylvania Dept of State elections page at 6:37 AM.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ posted 04/23/2008 at 06:38:44
Hillary Clinton On Countdown: I Believe In Deathbed Conversions
After he raked ABC over the coals for the debate moderation, I think he wanted to demonstrate how he thought the debate should have been handled -- stick to the issues. A "gotcha" question would have undermined his arguments against ABC. posted 04/21/2008 at 22:45:00
"Massive retaliation" has always been a euphemism for "nuke". posted 04/21/2008 at 22:41:39
McCain Struggles To Explain Away Hagee Connection In Attempt To Criticize Obama, Ayers
Wow. A reference to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
I don't think it's really fair to bring that up. McCain had only been in the Senate a few years at the time.
Cut the guy a break. posted 04/20/2008 at 18:14:47
I don't think it's really fair to bring that up. McCain had only been in the Senate a few years at the time.
Cut the guy a break. posted 04/20/2008 at 18:14:47
I'm really afraid we're left with two equally unappealing possibilities:
A) The point really WAS too subtle for McCain
B) He understood the point but purposefully chose to distort it for political gain posted 04/20/2008 at 18:09:49
A) The point really WAS too subtle for McCain
B) He understood the point but purposefully chose to distort it for political gain posted 04/20/2008 at 18:09:49
TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads
McCain criticized Obama for "comparing" William Ayers to Senator Tom Coburn. Why didn't Stephanopoulos follow this line of questioning?
Senator McCain, you described Senator Tom Coburn as a "humanitarian". He said "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."
Senator McCain, do you agree with these comments?
If you do not agree with those views, why do you maintain a relationship with Senator Coburn? The two of you actually belong to the same political party.
Given that you belong to the same party, why did you not leave that party once you found out about Senator Coburn's views? How could you sit there year-after-year while this hate-filled rhetoric filled the room? After all, you can't pick your family, but you can pick your political party.
Or, could it be that your position is actually identical to that of Senator Obama's: I know a lot of people. Some people I know say things I don't agree with. Because I know them doesn't mean that their views are the same as my own. posted 04/20/2008 at 12:48:01
Senator McCain, you described Senator Tom Coburn as a "humanitarian". He said "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."
Senator McCain, do you agree with these comments?
If you do not agree with those views, why do you maintain a relationship with Senator Coburn? The two of you actually belong to the same political party.
Given that you belong to the same party, why did you not leave that party once you found out about Senator Coburn's views? How could you sit there year-after-year while this hate-filled rhetoric filled the room? After all, you can't pick your family, but you can pick your political party.
Or, could it be that your position is actually identical to that of Senator Obama's: I know a lot of people. Some people I know say things I don't agree with. Because I know them doesn't mean that their views are the same as my own. posted 04/20/2008 at 12:48:01
Why didn't they ask why McCain wasn't wearing a flag pin? Doesn't that mean that McCain isn't patriotic? posted 04/20/2008 at 12:31:55
MCCAIN: "I can change the way we do business! I am magical! I can show you a world, shining, shimmering, splendid! Tell me, Tiny Debate Failure, now when did you last let your heart decide? I can open your eyes, take you wonder by wonder, over, sideways and under, on a magic carpet ride."
I'm not a McCain fan, but it's bad form to represent your paraphrasing his comments as actual quotes. posted 04/20/2008 at 10:43:32
I'm not a McCain fan, but it's bad form to represent your paraphrasing his comments as actual quotes. posted 04/20/2008 at 10:43:32
McCain in 2008 = Clinton in 2012
I don't know that it's so much "Obama won't hit a lady" as much as "Obama won't hit a fellow Democrat". He knows that attacking Hillary is bad for the party AND will alienate her supporters (who's votes he needs in November).
I'm hoping that once his opponent is a Republican that he will feel free to alter his tactics. posted 04/20/2008 at 10:25:59
I'm hoping that once his opponent is a Republican that he will feel free to alter his tactics. posted 04/20/2008 at 10:25:59
Obama Hamas Ties Pushed In McCain Letter: So Much For "Respectful" Campaign
But what if Hamas actually WANTS McCain to win? Wouldn't they SAY they wanted Obama so that he would lose the election and McCain would be President?
Unless, of course, that's what they WANT us to think....In that case, they want Obama to win, but they know we'd be suspicious and think they were trying to fool us, so they WOULD endorse Obama, figuring that we'd catch their trick and actually elect Obama President....
...But maybe that's what they want us to think.... posted 04/18/2008 at 16:31:15
Unless, of course, that's what they WANT us to think....In that case, they want Obama to win, but they know we'd be suspicious and think they were trying to fool us, so they WOULD endorse Obama, figuring that we'd catch their trick and actually elect Obama President....
...But maybe that's what they want us to think.... posted 04/18/2008 at 16:31:15
Krugman: Obama Clinging To A Stereotype
Obama was speaking informally, without notes, in response to a question about what to expect when volunteers approached voters in Pennsylvania. The audience did not expect a 1500-word "essay" in response to the question. He did not believe he was giving an answer that was expected to encompass the sociology of the American Midwest and the legacy of Bill Clinton. He did not expect that his words would be considered a test of his understanding of the book "What's the matter with Kansas".
In parsing Obama's words, Mr. Krugman sits at a word processor for several hours. He can spend 10-20 minutes trying to think of exactly the right word to use. He can go back and change what he has written. He has the benefit of being able to stop, go research and issue, get all the facts straight and come back and fix a mistake he might have made in the previous paragraph.
Given the advantages Mr. Krugman has in this "debate", it's little wonder he feels he comes out on top and Obama is left wanting. posted 04/18/2008 at 12:24:58
In parsing Obama's words, Mr. Krugman sits at a word processor for several hours. He can spend 10-20 minutes trying to think of exactly the right word to use. He can go back and change what he has written. He has the benefit of being able to stop, go research and issue, get all the facts straight and come back and fix a mistake he might have made in the previous paragraph.
Given the advantages Mr. Krugman has in this "debate", it's little wonder he feels he comes out on top and Obama is left wanting. posted 04/18/2008 at 12:24:58
Joe Scarborough Walks Off MSNBC's "Race To The White House" After Exchange With Rachel Maddow
Assertive woman = bitchy?
I'm assuming by "Crossfire" he meant the practice of trying to cut-off and talk over the other person in the discussion. That's EXACTLY what HE did. He then engaged in what seems to be a an increasingly common political tactic: Blame your opponent for doing the thing that you yourself are doing.
She called him on it and he was embarassed. posted 04/18/2008 at 07:14:42
I'm assuming by "Crossfire" he meant the practice of trying to cut-off and talk over the other person in the discussion. That's EXACTLY what HE did. He then engaged in what seems to be a an increasingly common political tactic: Blame your opponent for doing the thing that you yourself are doing.
She called him on it and he was embarassed. posted 04/18/2008 at 07:14:42
The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People
Not this time. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:27:58
McCain: We'll Look Back On Iraq As An 'Academic Argument'
I suspect he meant "academic" in the sense of "there's nothing we can do about it now".
However, it will be interesting to see if this gets twisted around as much as Obama's "bitter" remarks.
Somehow, I kind of doubt it. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:03:31
However, it will be interesting to see if this gets twisted around as much as Obama's "bitter" remarks.
Somehow, I kind of doubt it. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:03:31
Obama Offers Hannah Montana Treasury Secretary Job
It's actually a fairly smart way to get free television time. Not only does it get played on the original broadcast, it gets replayed on various news shows. Then it gets put on the web and people watch it there.
All that exposure and it didn't cost the candidates a dime. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:19:49
All that exposure and it didn't cost the candidates a dime. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:19:49
Unforced Error: Obama as San Fran Liberal Elitist
It's amazing that all of this can be inferred from one unscripted comment from Obama. Thank you for explaining to us what Obama MEANT to say, but apparently couldn't put into words. posted 04/13/2008 at 17:34:01
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The AP reports on Obama's swift and forceful response to Bush and McCain's criticism of...
The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few months ago,...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
Sixteen tips for getting good sleep. There's a lot of advice out there about getting good...
Two things that has happened since Romney suspended his campaign are the Reverend Wright "issue" and the FLDS compound raid.
All this hand-wringing about Wright (justified or not) has re-opened the door to questions about religion. If Romney becomes becomes McCain's running mate the press won't be as restrained as they were before in going after Romney's religion.
It also won't be long before someone puts a bug in the public's ear conflating the FLDS with Romney's church.
Yes, I know that Romney's religion is nobody's business but his own. Yes, I know that the FLDS is not Romney's church.
And yes, I know the U.S. public tends not to be that good at making such distinctions. posted 05/17/2008 at 19:28:00