WillfromSF

Why is Obama being pushed into asking his fund-raisers to help Hillary retire her debt? That to my experience is unprecedented. You didn't see Mitt Romney, for example, go crying to McCain to give him some money just so he wouldn't have thrown away so much of his own money in his campaign. And Mitt knew when to quit, as did all the other campaigners in both parties, all except Hillary. She kept on going and spending and trashing Obama in the sleaziest way long after it was mathematically possible for her to win and she did it all on borrowed money. Now that she's faced intervention-like reality, Obama's contributors are supposed to essentially pay for her excesses that were used against what they were originally contributing to? They're supposed to pay off that second-rate Karl Rove wannabee, Mark Penn? That makes no sense. Really this is just a bribe to keep Hillary from further underhanded tactics. Meanwhile other Democrats, others who campaigned against her and Obama just come out and support the candidate and tell their former supporters do the same with no quid pro quo -- as they should, as their supporters should, as she should, as her supporters should. Apparently that's a class act that she isn't up to. She's no longer campaigning, but she's making sure it's still all about Hillary. I admired her a year ago - I find her repulsive now. posted 07/10/2008 at 16:52:06

A beautiful tribute to a wonderful woman. Thanks for sharing her political wisdom with us. posted 07/09/2008 at 22:32:37

The headline says Lara is carrying Joe's baby. Uh...wouldn't the baby be hers as well? posted 07/09/2008 at 14:11:08

(cont.) Certainly many in the Bush Administration have done that dozens of times and they should be personally held accountable, jailed in many cases. That's how you keep them accountable for the laws and Constitution. Don't sue the guy caught in the middle who really has no choice in the matter. posted 07/04/2008 at 13:41:12

I know people are emotional about this issue, but I'm going to play devil's advocate anyway: The executive branch of the federal government tells you your company has to do something. If you don't cooperate you can be fined, penalized, put in jail. You don't have the legal expertise to know if what they are telling you to do is illegal or not and if you have a legal staff you don't know how it's going to play out in the courts. A private citizen or company can not, should not be in a position where they are calling the shots on what is legal, when they should comply with a government edict. That's the job of the government office that is issuing the edict and they are the ones to be sued by those who feel victimized by the act. Would you think a company that institutes positive environmental edicts from the federal government should be open to suit by those adversely financially affected by those changes? Too often in this litigiously-insane society, you're sued if you do and you're sued if you don't. Of course if they tell you to execute people or round them up to go to a concentration camp you have the Nuremburg precedents for extreme cases like that. But gathering information on private citizens? Sue the government - the ones who made the decision. And make those in government who push the law too far accountable for their behavior with criminal prosecution. (cont.) posted 07/04/2008 at 13:40:43

Yeah, you wish. Obviously you're a McCain supporter who wants Nader to take votes away from Obama. Go back to Rush Limbaugh and tell him it didn't work. posted 07/02/2008 at 15:51:00

I agree it would be better with your suggestion. As it stands right now, it sounds like McCain wants to kidnap her baby. It seems like a cheap shot, likely to backfire. At least that's how it affects me. posted 06/17/2008 at 16:55:06

I got the email from Move On about this ad being the most influential ad they have ever come up with. Personally I don't get it. I assume the woman is an actress because there is no statement of who she is. To me that cheapens any emotional appeal. Then she seems like a twit when out of the blue she tells John McCain he can't have her Alex, as if he had threatened to kidnap him. It would have been more effective if she said something like "I don't want Alex, and your children too, to grow up in a country that is in an insane war throughout his childhood, his adolescence, and even his adulthood, whereas John McCain thinks a 100-year occupation of Iraq is just fine." The current ad seems like swiftboating, but it's such a blatant cheap shot, that it makes me feel sympathy for McCain and that's the last thing voters should be feeling. Yes it will get attention, but all the wrong kind. Scrap it. posted 06/17/2008 at 16:46:47

I let it go in 1968. I just wanted to present some information that would balance the legend of RFK. Sadly, none of us are saints, even the saints. posted 06/06/2008 at 14:57:07

I too remember 1968 well and Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign was not as unselfish and idealistic as the myth that outlived him. It was Eugene McCarthy who had the lone vision to challenge a sitting President Johnson over an unjust war in Vietnam. After McCarthy almost defeated Johnson in New Hampshire which was perceived as a huge surprise, only then did Kennedy throw his hat in the ring in mid-March to exploit and take over the movement that McCarthy had assembled. Despite Kennedy's huge name recognition, media support, and money, McCarthy then won primaries in Oregon and Wisconsin (there were only a few state primaries in that era). The California primary was the only one that Kennedy won. He had a ruthless reputation before the 1968 race, but that changed with his martyrdom. Kennedy rose to fame on his brother's coattails and his father's money - basically the same kind of nepotism that gave Hillary and Dubya their careers. It's hard to say whether the image that persists today about him would have fit the man if he had not been tragically shot down, but it certainly didn't apply to who he had been up till that point. posted 06/06/2008 at 14:33:34

There is no "impending doom" unless Hillary and her supporters sit out the election or vote for McCain. It's beyond time for them to do what virtually every other Presidential aspirant has done when they lose in the primaries - congratulate the victor, concede graciously, and encourage their supporters to fight for their party's victory in November. Hillary has passed up this opportunity to do the right thing many times, most notably last night. Ms. Rosen realizes she is not Clinton's bargaining chip. I look forward to other Hillary supporters doing the right thing as well. posted 06/04/2008 at 14:54:56

Why is it Clinton's supporters (unlike Ms. Rosen, at least in this post) are too much like Hillary, herself? posted 06/04/2008 at 14:46:24

I think about Hillary, Barack, John and this election way too much and unlike the usual obsession of the week or month, this is going on way too long and I wish they'd move up the election from November to tomorrow (April Fools' Day -- how appropriate) so I can get on with my excuse for a life. posted 03/31/2008 at 14:37:07

I guess Hillary saw her sniper fire in Bosnia through a glass eye too. posted 03/29/2008 at 20:05:49

Can't we Democrats all just get along and keep our eyes on the prize? I know, two cliches in one sentence is not very creative, but seriously this ego-trip on both sides is going to get Bush-not-so-lite elected and then we'll be sniping about whichever candidate didn't get the nomination being the new Ralph Nader. What is it with Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Do we want to be whining on the sidelines for the next 100 years we'll be in Iraq, or do we want to try and fix this rapidly deteriorating country? posted 03/27/2008 at 14:44:20

"...the biggest burden is carried by President Bush." OMG - has anything less true ever been said? posted 03/24/2008 at 17:52:47

The 4,000 "milestone" is a misleading tip of the iceberg. Pro-war types like to point out this is less than 10% of our losses in Vietnam, but the figure itself is very misleading, assuming it's even accurate. First, this is the first war to be largely outsourced and civilian Americans are not counted. Surely their count must be approaching 1,000 by now. Second, this is the first war that we can keep large numbers (25,000 so far?) soldiers alive because of emergency medical technologies -- soldiers who would have died in earlier wars live on but under the most horrendous conditions. These wounds never heal and their lives are sometimes death-in-life. Third, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, millions of Iraqi refugees. The emotional and financial costs of this war will go on far longer than its predecessors, crippling America's economy. And all for what? End this stupid war, ASAP. posted 03/24/2008 at 17:49:42