cynicalismo

Listen to these economists? What for? They ain't so smart.

On the one hand they say prices won't go down that much because Big Oil will jack the prices up and pocket the difference; on the other hand they say lower prices will increase demand. Pick a hand!. No wonder Harry Truman said he was looking for a one handed economist.

Who's gonna cause this big jump in demand, workers skipping doctors' visits, skimping on food? They've got to get to work, so they're buying gas anyway, but gas prices are killing them. Those who aren't hard-pressed are filling up even at these prices. How much more gas will they buy if the price of gas does go down ten or fifteen cents a gallon?

Everyone's against this tax moratorium except those who really need relief. If we can spend nine billion a month in Iraq we can find some way to cover the lost taxes. Where's the "Yes we can," from the Obamacrats?.

Talk of a tax moratorium is just talk. Congress doesn't care and Bush wouldn't sign, but the issue is revelatory nonetheless. Hillary says "Never mind," to the economists. She wants to alleviate the problems of those living on 40,000 dollars or less. Obama, on the other hand, wants to shows us how savvy he is about economics. Given an opportunity to come up with something concrete, he says, "No, we can't!"

I'm with Hillary. posted 05/05/2008 at 02:00:49

A non-existant (sic) gun!! Wow! You've really cut the ground from under the entire Clinton campaign, posted 05/05/2008 at 00:36:38

Aside from the pitiful few who imagine themselves to be the only truly legitimate leftists, I haven't come across anybody who thinks Hillary a right wing fascist. Only those on whose tongues the word fascist trips lightly would call her one. posted 05/06/2008 at 00:59:32

Gasoline is about $3.50 a gallon. A few months ago gas was $3.25 or less .

Opponents of Clinton's proposal say a tax holiday would increase demand for gasoline. Are they saying a tax moratorium would increase demand over what it was when gas was about $3.00 or are they saying that current prices are depressing demand and are, therefore, desirable?

Are these economists intellectually challenged? Doesn't anybody in the media ask these experts to substantiate their opinions?

The critics are there'd be no bonanza for the average motorist, but millions in our country are now living on the edge and for them pennies matter.

I don't like skyrocketing gas prices, but I don't have to give up food, health care or other essentials to pay for gas; my income is adequate and I drive only 7K miles yearly. For health aides, house cleaners, landscapers, migrant agricultural workers, part-timers and millions of others making under $40K every penny really counts. They'll take what they can get until the Democrats retake the government and come up with long-term solutions. Independent truckers and workers on long commutes are taking a beating. Any reduction in gas prices even just for the summer, would be a boon.

I can picture these critics: academics with decent pay checks; politicians with government transportation. I don't hear criticisms from those who need price relief, the working stiffs of America posted 05/01/2008 at 14:48:01

What? Will the line go on forever, these mindless dolts threatening to withdraw if their guy doesn't get the nod? Are these Obamacratic cultists really going to secede and yield the field to McCain?

These sunshine Democrats are intent on proving that they are rock star groupies rather than serious voters. Vote for McCain or not vote at all if Hillary should be the nominee? They must be daft!

So it's either St Barack or nine Republicans rightists on the Supreme Court according to Marlyn. Seems tp me that Marlyn and lots of other Obamacrats are yearning to get at the Kool-Aid.

Serious Democrats intent on taking back Congress and the White House will support the Party's choics, no matter who they may be. posted 05/02/2008 at 00:36:35

Ånother one of those "I'm taking my ball and going home if I can't choose who pitches," dilettantes.

You can't possibly be serious about the state of our nation if you'd be willing to enable the formation of a completely Republican Supreme Court, an endless war in Iraq, an economy down the tubes, tax cuts for the rich and an end to social programs for the working and middle classes among other serious outcomes.

So-o-o-o, you are either throwing a tantrum and making idle threats or you are in irredeemably adolescent Obama groupie who doesn't have even the slightest grasp of what is at stake. posted 05/01/2008 at 23:22:23

Her's another one, a Democrat loose cannon. Bill Clinton is a sociopath??? Come out from behind that Bush. We know you for what you really are. posted 05/01/2008 at 22:44:13

Right off the bat, as I drop down to the comments, the first one I spot calls the Clintons the 'greatest villains' and 'arrogant, self serving jackasses.' With Democrats like PioneerKing on the prowl, the Right Wing doesn't need the Swiftboaters. posted 05/01/2008 at 22:41:25

Aren't you Mr. Unsubscriber, the guy who always threatens to cancel his sub every time a publication disagrees with him? Even the publication for which he has no subscription?
And weren't you the kid down the block who always threw a tantrum and threatened to walk when the team captain chose someone else as pitcher?

All this nonsensical bull about voting for McCain if your candidate isn't selected is old and tired. No serious Democrat could possibly vote Republican in this critical 2008 election, so you're not really a serious Democrat, are you? You're either a camouflaged Republican or a dilettante groupie cultist. Which is it? posted 04/29/2008 at 23:39:37

No, no, Newsketeer, Obamacrats are in a BIND, not blind. And that's Obamacrats, not Democrats. posted 04/30/2008 at 17:50:27

You must be very young if you can say about the news, "Now it is just propaganda." When has the MSM ever been a real source of news? Progressives have been reading alternative news sources for more than a century up to the present moment and they still are haaving trouble getting the truth.

There is no such thing as a position-neutral newsgather. There is certainly no such thing as a position-neutral commentator or columnist. Everyone has a bias, conscious or unconscious. If you can find an agenda-free news source, more power to you.

I know it will come as a shock to you that politicians are just politicians. People who are looking for fastidiously altruistic candidates are chasing a will o' the wisp.

Hillary has her flaws and Obama has his. They are both just politicians, both ambitious power seekers. They have their sets of beliefs, but as politicians they both know that there are times when they have to make accommodations. The question is this: which one will work harder to promote progressive goals?

We don't need a saint or a knight in shining armor to lead this nation; what we need is someone who'll do the necessary even if it means getting down there in the muck. Is that person Obama?

I think not. posted 04/30/2008 at 16:21:24

Obamacrats are in a bind. Only a couple of days ago hosts of them were issuing apologias galore: Wright was right; the rest of us were wrong; we were only hearing sound bites; Wright was speaking truth to power; Wright was in the mainstream of Black theology; we didn't know the real Wright. There was no end to the rightness of Wright.

And then came the blinding flash that revealed the true Wright. We were right and Wright was wrong. Wright was disloyal. Wright was basking in his fifteen minutes of fame. Wright was envious of the Obama who had stolen his limelight. Wright was giddy, exhilarated. Wright was mad. Wright was sacrificing his god son on the altar of Mammon. Wright was setting himself up for humongous book deals. Thee was no end to the wrongness of Wright.

What is a poor Obamacrat to do but turn to his keyboard and tap out an anti-Wright tirade and, at the same time, praise Obama for his elegant and graceful sacrificial tossing of his mentor under the bus, the act, in this case, since we are speaking of his Obamaness, of a reluctant god son (the son of god, to hear some Obamacrats speak) rather than a practical, single-minded, ambitious politician. posted 04/30/2008 at 14:17:38

Hal was carousing with Falstaff and the other boozers for a long time. With the crown in his hand, how sincere was he when he denounced Falstaff? He didn't have to fake it since he was king already.

Obama sat there listening to Wright for twenty years. With visions of the presidency in his head, how sincere is he in denouncing his pastor? We'll see.

In the meantime, the seeds of doubt, righfully or wrongfully, are sprouting in millions of minds. We have to ask ourselves this question, "Do we want a Democrat in the White House in 2009?" If the answer is "yes," we have to make sure that we have a candidate who can win. posted 04/30/2008 at 13:44:11

So your candidate for POTUS, for Commander-in-Chief, for leader of the free world is a guy who doesn't pay too much attention to what's being said around him, what's going on around him? We've got one of those already. posted 04/30/2008 at 13:13:09

Be careful what you hope for. posted 04/30/2008 at 13:06:38

Writers are at liberty to make subjective evaluations, but so are readers. Baitz saw a quietly angry Obama, an Obama who spoke with certitude. I saw an upset Obama, a subdued Obama, a head-bowed- can't-look-the -world-in -the-eye Obama. Which of us saw clearly? As Obama said, "We'll see." posted 04/30/2008 at 13:05:45

Perhaps Ms Jong will favor us with another punditical bit of puffery now that His Obamaness has thrown the Rev from the sled. He didn't have to throw Wright to the wolves, the good doctor did that to himselfr. posted 04/30/2008 at 14:25:49

All this sniggering! I don't see anything funny about society's 'ducking-stool' approach to Spitzer's "moral downfall."

The problem here is that prostitution is not a victimless crime. Too many connections to the underworld. Spitzer understood this intellectually and legally. That is, he knew from a societal legal point of view that prostitution is wrong and, as a prosecutor, he acted against it. However, as an individual with certain sexual needs which he felt, rightly or wrongly, he couldn't satisfy within the confines of his marriage, he turned to prostitutes.

Spitzer is dubbed a hypocrite, but was in the grip of peychological and emotional forces beyond his control. He had to know that his behavior was reckless and yet he persisted in it, risking everything.

Pilgrim is right, the intensity of the schadenfreude, the high glee, tells us that society has shot itself in the foot in this instance. Spitzer's downfall is a an occasion for laughter and mockery by people who envy him his abilities, his wealth and his achievements. His fall from power is a triiumph for a lot of seeming pillars of society who are in fact really very bad guys. posted 04/24/2008 at 13:07:07

Obamacrats dissociate themselves from past Democratic administrations.. They use the same epithets against the Clintons that Republicans used and speak of the Clintonian era using the right-wing invective of the past.

In Obamaspeak, the Clinton years cannot be differentiated from the Reagan/Bush years; Clinton surpluses are like Reagan/Bush deficits; Clinton era job growth equates with W's job loss; Clinton's civil and human rights record is similar to Bush-Cheney's; Clinton's regulatory agencies were as bad as Ron's and W's. The Obamacrats advert to Lewinsky and the blue dress with the same venomous, lip-licking malice used by the right wing conspiracy (and there was a right wing conspiracy). if they could go back in time they would probably vote "guilty" at Bill's impeachment.

Why do Obamacrats denigrate the Clinton years? Fear! Admitting the Clinton years were good could redound to Hillary's credit in some way. They'd rather give up an opportunity to remind the electorate of good times under past Democratic administrations. All this for their dream of the establishment of the Obamacracy, headed by the Obama himself, a political system in which the Republican wolves will lie down with the Obamacratic lambs, while the Obama drives the lobbyists from the legislative temple.

Pass the Kool-Aid! posted 04/18/2008 at 15:32:29

Working with activist lawyers was not a crime then and is not a crime now. What's your take on the lawyers defending Guantanamo detainees? Want their interns barred from public office?

You haven't been paying attention, This was a summer job, a fill-in between her Wellesley graduation and the start of Yale Law. Hardly a career committment.

Pretty transparent? You must be wearing the magical spectacles of fairy tale fame. posted 04/18/2008 at 15:47:14

No, it's not a rumor, but it is a prime example of vicious innuendo. Hillary worked for the Treuhaft, Walker, Bernstein firm right after getting out of college durng the summer before starting at Yale Law in 1969, a period of great politiical ferment. I can't speak for her motivation, but I do know that young activists of that period were eager to fight for political justice and that communist and left-leaning lawyers were the ones who were most willling to engage the establishment in the civil rights battles of the time.

Tying Hillary's name to Treuhaft is an attempt to imply that Hillary was a communist.And this, without making clear that it was an intership and that she was not a lawyer and that she was not doing legal work, couldn't have been because she hadn't even had as much as day of legal education. More important still, whatever work she did for TWB did not make her a Marxist. To imply otherwise is to engage in the the worst kind og witch hunt..

My blood freezes when I read McCarthyite articles like this one and see so many Obama supporters jumping onto the red-baiting wagon. This isn't the politics of he future that Obama is speechifying about; this is the politics of the Fifties, the insidious politics of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Those who lived through that period know only too well how damaging to the national fabric that witch hunt was. posted 04/18/2008 at 00:03:42

Dear Mom,
I hope you're not home-schooling your children. Before you go any further with their education, take a course in science for the layperson.

You obviously don't have a problem about self-esteem. It takes cojones the size of a basketball (or am I underestimating the effect of high estrogen levels?) to pit your unschooled opinion against the consensus of the worldwide scientific community. When you're traveling north on the interstate and everybody else in your lane is traveling south, just assume that they're all wrong. Right? posted 04/17/2008 at 22:07:41

Careful about swallowing statements like "the most unethical lawyer I've ever seen." Especially statements made twenty years later.

If she was unethical, Zeifman had an ethical obligation to bring her before the Bar Association. Did he? Did the Bar association officially censure her or did Zeifman censure her personally?. A personal act of censure is just one man's opinion... documented, of course .... in Zeifman's diary. (I have the proof right here, Your Honor. It's written down in my personal diary in my own handwriting.)

The answer is she was censured by the barf association of which Zeifman seems to be the head.

Zeifman, a Joe Lieberman supporter, is a man on a mission of character assassination. You're not doing a bad job, either. "Seems she actually forged a document." Seems? Either she did or she didn't. 'Seems' is a weasel word for "I' don't know this for a fact. I'm just tossing it in for effect."

Did Hillary work as a lawyer at Treuhaft, Walker and Bernstein? No, she did not. It was a summer job. Wow! Young, idealistic college graduate interns for radical civil rights firm! And where did your sympathies lie at that time? With Mario Savio or with J. Edgar Hoover?

If linking Obama to Ayers is making a mountain out of a molehill, linking Hillary to Truehaft et al is making an anthill out of an anthill.

BTW, the word is censured, not censored. posted 04/17/2008 at 21:50:53

How did your wife get to be an expert on the degradation of women? Did you have anything to do with that?

How would I characterize a woman in a bar who had a shot and a beer? Well, for starters, I wouldn't characterize her on the basis of her drinking a shot and a beer, but I think I could safely characterize you as being decidedly Pecksniffian.

"Just a beer would be fine."? Who appointed you the alcoholic beverage monitor? BTW, how many shots have you taken wihout a beer?

As for working people congregating in other places, Lighten up. She's appeared in other venues, but she's never been seen downing a shot and a beer while speaking to the congregation.

Lastly, there's a difference between being among the elite and being an elitisit. Hillary is among the elite. What people are saying is that Obama may be among the elite, but he is also an elitist. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:03:34

Mark another one up against Hillary. She's obviously an uncontrollable lush. At any rate, she didn't take an elitist sip of the stuff. Ooops, we can get her on that, too.

The moral of this story is that any pretext will did when Obamans decide to attack Hillary. posted 04/15/2008 at 13:39:31

Campaigns are run in public. Any criticism either of the Democratic candidates makes of the other is made out in the open and can become part of the Republican nominee's arsenal. Are the candidates, therefore, to throw marshmallows at each other for fear that McCain would otherwise gain talking points? The only way they could avoid providing ammunitiion for the Republicans would be by trading inanities.

Does anyone here think that McCain and company would have ignored this story on HuffPo if Hillary had let it pass?

Does anyone here think that Obama would have let it pass if it had been about Hillary? In fact, who dragged out the Bosnia story? posted 04/15/2008 at 13:17:18

He said it. Huffington publicized it . It's there for all to read and interpret as they will. Hillary has as much right to give her views as Obama has to imply that she's insincere. So, stifle your indignation.

Obama is in the kitchen with Clinton and if either of them can't take the heat... well, you know the rest of the saying.

I wish all you doting Obamother hens would stop telling Hillary to stop picking on your poor, helpless little chickie-boy. Politicians WILL use stilettoes to stab each other in the back...or the front: they always have. As the referee says to the boxers before the fight begins, "Protect yourselves at all times." posted 04/15/2008 at 12:27:02

Can't assassinate this guy's character. His character has been in a figurative train wreck and is assassinating itself and now he's involved in a literal car wreck, The man's political career will expire at the end of his term, if not sooner. His marriage will probably expire simultaneously.

As the Rev Wright might say, "Senator Vitter, your chickens, like America's, are coming home to roost!" posted 04/08/2008 at 00:33:33

Touched a nerve, didn't I?

"CREEP, " especially written in caps is a deeply cutting epithet. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:22:50

What makes you think that Toby25 is a Republican? The fact that he suggests that Hillary or Obama might at one time or another have used street language?

As for who cares...I don't and I have never ever voted Republican.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee even if someone produces evidence that he called his father a m----rf----r or that she called her mother a c--ks----r. I used dashes to avoid upsetting your tender sensibilities.

You sanctimonious prigs disgust me. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:43:53

McCain is vulnerable enough on almost every issue (I'd leave out the 'almost' except for the fact that I never make absolute statements); why dig up schmutz (that's 'dirt' in Yiddish) from all the way back in 1992?

McCain called his wife a cunt, so it's okay for nasty (oops, sorry, I misread your tag) to call McCain a schmuck, the crude yiddish word for penis.

Obama supporters are so habituated to using vituperative language when attacking Hillary that it permeates all their comments. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:16:25

U of Chi could be the #1 law school in the world but it wouldn't change the fact, THE FACT, that he is listed as a senior lecturer on the website of the Law School of the U of Chicago. Others who are actually professors, not senior lecturers, are listed as Asst. Professors and Professors, according to their actual titles.

Long, rambling disquisitions on the merits of various universities or the skills needed for teaching high level courses are simply obfuscations. If he was listed as a professor, you could say that in a sentence or two.. But of course he wasn't a professor; he was a senior lecturer. posted 04/01/2008 at 01:42:02

Did you ever read so many evasions on a single topic?

The quesgtion is "DID OBAMA HAVE THE TITLE OR RANK OF "PROFESSOR?"

Access the U of Chicago site at the following link: cobweb.uchicago.edu/fm/xst/qu31207/findrecords.xsl
Enter Obama's name and you will get the following: Obama, Barack, sr. lecturer, Law School, LBQ 514 Out-of-Residence, 09-24-07 to 06-14-008

Evasions:

1) U of Chi says he was sr. lecturer but dubs him professor. No explanation for his not being listed as professor.

2) Students call everybody professor. Thata doesn't make him a professor.

3) He taught constitutional law and only the best teach that sub j, say some. What's hat got to do with his title?

4) Numerous academics say they were called professor even though they were only adjuncts or instructors or boondogglers or ...you name it. Still doesn't make him anyhthing but a senior lecturer.

5) Senior Lectutrer is an honorable title and, anyhway, what would students call a senior lecturer? Well, they call him Mr. Obama, or Counselor, or tghey could address him as "Hey you." None of this makes him anything but a senior lecturer.

None of these evasions, rationalizations, excuses or limp but indignant responses goes to the question,
The University's press release is no more convincing than the other stubborn refusals to acknowledge what is down in writing on the U of Chi website.

An appeal to reason on this site is useless. posted 04/01/2008 at 01:23:05

I read it and it is a masterpiece of begged questions and misrepresentations. The best that can be said for the suthor's position is that the charge is open to interpretation. The fact is, Obama was a senior lecturer. The U oChi and the Obama supporters choose to accept a very loose interpretation of what a professor is. Their stand is that if you say you're a porfessor, you are one. If the U of lChi consideers him a profeswsor, why in the world did they choose to list him as senior lecturer? posted 04/01/2008 at 00:56:46

well, no. You're not lying EVERY time you move your lips, but you are trashing Hillary the rest of the time. .

I sense great neediness when I read the Obamagrams. Before whom did you prostrate yourself b efore there was St. Barack? Were you a Moonie or a Jonesie? And whom will you idolize after the great meltdown? posted 03/31/2008 at 23:37:22

My father was a ph.g, a degree , as far as I can tell, no longer granted. It stands for Pharmacist Graduate. His customers, accustomed to patronizing other pharmacists who liked to aggrandize themselves, tried to call him "Doc." He always corrected them, telling them that his honorific was "Mr." He would have sneered at anyone who permitted himself to be addressed by a title not really his own. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:24:49

U of Chi says Obama was a professor, but their faculty records list him as:

Obama, Barack, sr. lecturer, Law School, LBQ514 out-of-residence 09-24-07 to 06-14-08

If he really was a professor, why didn't they list him as a professor?

Here's the link. See it for yourself. Then, if you still think he was a professor, get help. You're in denial.

cobweb.uchicago.edu/fm/xst/qu31207/findingrecords.xsl

Why did U of Chi vouch for him? I can only guess they think it would be a boasting point if he were elected.

I wonder if even one of you Abamidolators will confess yourself wrong on this. posted 03/31/2008 at 21:50:32

The CEO of World Communications said that everything he did was on the up and up.

He lied, even though he was the one signing the checks.

The Law School of the University of Chicago said that Obama was a professor.

They stretched the truth....Nah, they lied, evn though they signed the checks.

Take the trouble to check out the records of the Law School itself. He's listed as a senior lecturer. This is not a case of ipse dixit. It is there.

Look it up fast. Stuff on Trinity United's website was mysteriously excised the day after Obama denounced, renounced and condemned Dr. Wright's sermon, stuff that suggested that the church supported major elements of Black Separatism posted 03/31/2008 at 18:45:32

They've been spinning it like spiders on meth, but facts is facts.

The University of Chicago has been spinning it along with the rest of them, but facts is facts.

Retired academics have spinning it all day long, but they can't change it because facts is facts.

Facts is facts. Face it...and put an end to the hair-splitting, eqivocation, spinning and chop logic.

The fact is that the Law School of the University of Chicago, its press release notwithstanding, does NOT list Barack Obama as a professor, associate professor or even assistant professor. It lists him as a Senior Lecturer. I repeat: THE LAW SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LISTS BARACK OBAMA AS A SENIOR LECTURER. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:30:52

If these completely unprincipled Obamans had thought of it, they would have blamed her for that last tsunami....and the disappearances of Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa. posted 03/31/2008 at 13:06:12

Why don't you do a cursory search on Google to check your statement.? It only took me about a minute to learn that you don't know what you're talking about. You are perfectly willing to smear a reputable NY Time columnist by passing on malicious and libelous gossip? Shame on you!

Please! Please do not cite Andrew Sullivan. His criticism of Krugman has been thoroughly debunked. posted 03/29/2008 at 01:37:35

A truly piercing analysis of Mr. Krugman's comments based upon nothing.
If you're going to criticize a columnist of Paul Krugman's stature, try to include some substance. posted 03/29/2008 at 01:16:52

I take it that you disagree with Paul Krugman. Next time try saying outright, "I strongly disagree with Paul Krugman," instead of impugning, without the slightest substantiation, one of the stalwarts of the progressive movement.
Did you say that you are really a Time subscriber. Wow! You must really be up on what's what in progressive politics. posted 03/29/2008 at 01:09:20

Sorry about the letter dropouts. I'll reiterate.

Do you have a real response up your sleeve? posted 03/29/2008 at 01:00:50

Please don't waste your time asking Obama supporters not to let their bias blind them to the facts; that's their stock in trade.

I wonder what scenario they've worked out in their heads about how Obama, who can't unify the Democrats, is going to unify the Congress. I wonder, too, why they are so certain that Hillary wll be more beholden to her donors than Obama will be to his.

Unless the Democratic Party sweeps the Senate and the House as well as the presidency, nobody is going to be able to make sweeping changes in the nation's trajectory. If there is a clean sweep, and if the stated positions of the candidates remain true, there is no much than a hairsbreadth's difference between wha Obama might do and what Hillary might do. posted 03/29/2008 at 00:57:07

Stop whining, Whinger. Your test for impartiality, that only those who have kind words for Obama are impartial, tells us all we need to know about your remarks. Krugman's credibility is in tatters? The credibility of the one commentator who has consistently been spot-on, in tatters? Whose commentaries have you been following during the Bush years? You must have just gotten off the spaceship from Mars posted 03/29/2008 at 00:37:19

Before we get into Hillary's "actual policies," let's remember that we already know that Obama's actual "get-out-of-Iraq-quick" policy is not actually his "get-out-of-Iraq-quick" policy. And then there is Obama's dream of unifying Congress. Any erasure of he gap between Dems and Repubs can only come at the cost of watering down reform legislation to the inocuous. posted 03/29/2008 at 00:24:31

It is truly scurrilous to keep screaming, "Get out of the race. WE want to win! posted 03/29/2008 at 00:17:21

really brilliant reaction. And why can't the guru of the new politics afford to be bold and progressive? posted 03/29/2008 at 00:15:33

Do you have a real ressponse p our sleeve? posted 03/29/2008 at 00:13:35

How sweet and naive of you to believe that it wouldn't matter if WERE a Muslim. I don't care what his religion is, either, What concerns me is that so many of his supporters are like you, more interested in how inspirational he is than the nuts and bolts of his policies and his view of America. The NY Times. today, wrote that Clinton's and Obama's policies are very similar. Paul Krugman, in today's Times, said that while they have similar policies, Clinton"s are more liberal and progressive; Obama's are more conventional.

Obama talks about unifying, working with the opposition and governing through consensus. Changing America's direction cannot be accomplished by consensus. Legislation filtered through the Republican minority will be all about compromise. What we need is a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. That'sthe only way in which this country can move forward. Republicans will never go along with regulation of the financial markets, restortion of regulatory power to environmental agencies and the rest of the progressive agenda.

Prayer circles, touchy-feely speeches and rapport with the party of GW Bush will get us nowhere. Restoration of New Deal stle political action is what we nee. posted 03/28/2008 at 14:11:52

There's nothing like the anonymity provided by noms-de guerre. People on this site are trying to outdo one another in emitting vitriol. I think you'd all be more civil if you had to reveal your true identities.

Never, before the existence of the internet, have so many been so cruelly insulting without cause to so many who have insulted them right back. You've been spitting in your fellow Democrats' faces without any though of the consequences and the've been spitting right back. A party so divided cannot long endure. Time to back off....everybody. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:30:58

My late ex-wife once told my sister that for years she thought I was perfect...and then I made a mistake.

Charley Brown said there was nothing harder to live up to than a high potential.How right he was. Harder still to live up to the idealized image of you that exists in your admirers' minds.

Even though you're perfect in the eyes of your followers, BO, you're bound to make another mistake. I know; according to true believers, the Dr. Wright affair was a rightwing plot, not a mistake, and sticking to Trinity whose pastor preaches something like Black Separatism was no mistake because Obama epitomized the monkeys of legend: Hear no evil! See no evil; Speak no evil. Everything looked OK to him.

BO can be sure of this: Dr. Wright wasn't trying to close the gap between races, Obama had a great opportunity to put his unifying skills to the test in the twenty years he was a parishioner at Triniity but he saw no black-white chasm there. He sees it only in speeches.

BTW untill the day before "the speech," Trinity's website prominently displayed some guiding principles. Among them: Black Values System; Black Liberation Theology; Black Self-sufficiency and African-centrism. Connect the dots and you have something that looks a lot like Black Separatism. The day a;fter 'the speech" this material was shifted to a less accessible page and all reference to the idea of buying only from Black Businesses was excised. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:36:51

O Bright One! Everybody who seeks the presidential nomination is obsessed with becoming president. Only the single-minded ones enter the race. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:44:52

I'm beginning to believe that ou have to undergone a frontal lobotomy to qualify as an Obama supporter. He deserves kinder, gentler acolytes than he's getting.

I voted for Clinton. Of course as a Floridian I might just as well have voted for the Manchurian candidate. Why isn't Obama fighting to have my vote count?

Well, maybe he's just doing politics the old way, the way he says he's going to change. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:41:44

Even if serial philandering is a mortal sin in your eyes, the sin is the philanderer's, not his wife's. Since you have already committed a venial sin by false attribution, you have no right to cast stones, Hillary who is more sinned against than sinning has more right t cast stones than you. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:35:22

I despair for our nation when I read remarks like yours. To think that the votes of people with your reasoning skills decide who should govern is almost enough to make me yearn for a qualifying test for voters. The Obama supporters on this blog who would pass such a qualifying test might fill an old phone booth.

The nature of your personal attack on the Clintons revolts me. Your vulgarity makes Rush Limbaugh seem the epitome of politesse by contrast.

Don't feel too bad. The vicious thoughlessness of your comment is only a little below par for the Obama idolators on this blog. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:06:23

You are logic challenged. Clinton says that the delegates are free to vote their consciences. She also asks that she be granted the delegates she won...55% of the delegates in FL, 50% of the delegates in MI. She's entitled to have those delegates added o he total, but when those delegates get to vote at the Democratic Convention in Denver, they will be free to vote THEIR consciences.

As I understand it, in some states delegates are committed to their candidate for at least the first ballot. After that the delegates are free to vote as they will. I remind you that the USA is a republic that runs through elected representatives who, once they are elected are free to ignore all their pre-election promises. Our government is not run by direct deocratic participation

The political conventions operate similarly. There is nothing that can bind a delegate's vote for the duration of the convention. Once he convention is past the fist ballot, it's Besy bar the door, There is, again, no guarantee of direct democratic participation posted 03/25/2008 at 23:07:12

Your personal attack on Hilary Clinton is as revolting as anything attributed to Rush Limbaugh. Shame! posted 03/25/2008 at 22:39:06

Hypocrite. I'm willing to bet that you defended Bill Clinton on grounds that his sexual indiscretion was nobody's business but his own and Hillary's. And now, like the yahoo that you are, you're blaming Hillary for something that Bill did that is nobody's business but their own.

Is your comment the end product of a thought process? If it is, you need to see about a brain transplant. posted 03/25/2008 at 22:00:32

Yes, a flat out lie, like Obama's original statement that he was not in the pews in church when Dr. Wright delivered his sermon. Not much difference between a little self-aggrandizement by hyping a war story (she sort of claimed poor recollection) and the flat out lie that he wasn't in the pews (he had poor recollection, too) And then he deflected with a silver-tongued oration (which I would have found inspiring if it had been delivered in the normal course of the primary campaign instead of in forced response to a serious make or break moment). posted 03/25/2008 at 21:12:39

What in the world is so outlandish about a blow job? Oh, I forgot. I'm addressing Obamaniacs St. Barack's acolytes.\

You and Obama's guys are as vicious as you make Hillary to be. You accuse her of the very things you're doing.

The Trnity United affair is not a minor blip, It's not about race, guilt by association or even whether Obama heard this sermon. It's about Trinity's longterm direction under Dr. Wright.

Trinity's website said tthe church abided by 1) the Black Values System; 2) Black Liberation Theology and 3) Black self-sufficiency, stressing the need to patronize Black businesses when possible. The thrust is strongly Black Separatist. It's interesting that these principles were prominently displayed on Trinity's website until tjust before Obama's speech. Someone deemed it advisable, after the speech, to move these guidelines to a relatively inconspicuous page and to excise reference to patronage of Black businesses.

Forget Dr. Wright's anti-American rant. Obama didn't have to apologize for not reacting to occasional sermons he disagreed with and he has the Constitutional right to espouse his politics of choice. What he needs to explain is why he stayed for twenty years with a pastor who espouses a postion he disagrees with. That he remained with Trinity and did not distance himself from Dr. Wright's position is puzzling in a politician as astute as he. His speech ducked this issue.

John McCain's surrogates will hold his feet to this fire....over and over again.. posted 03/25/2008 at 19:18:22