gallonjug

I think his point was that, to vote for Clinton and then vote for McCain, the only possible thing that could be motivating you is... what, exactly?

You've decided you really do want more war? You don't want health care after all? You'd prefer a solidly right-wing supreme court for the next 40 years?

Please, enlighten us? What legitimate reason could a democrat have for voting for McCain? posted 05/05/2008 at 00:11:38

this "electability" thing is SUCH a specious and moot argument, you sophist. Let's set aside the fact that every national poll contradicts your point, all that matters is this:

John McCain is not going to be the presidency. Not. In. A. Hundred. Years.

After 8 years which have brought the worst economy and worst foreign policy in 50 years, the people are not going to elect a republican who has attached himself forcefully to every one of the policies of the most unpopular president in the history of polling.

Why do you think the Clintons are fighting this so viciously? they know that the Dem nominee is the de facto winner. posted 05/05/2008 at 00:06:13

STOP! She voted to authorize the war. He spoke forcefully against because he said it would open the door to endless civil war and make us less safe. THERE IS NO DEBATING THIS!

He has since voted to fund our soldiers because to cut of funding before pulling them out is not an option for any responsible leader.

She just told every Persian-American that their relatives can expect to be "obliterated" for crimes of their government. Obama said this kind of hot-headed rhetoric was not helpful given the enormous diplomatic challenges that await the next President.

She has shown over and over again that she is so insecure about being considered a 'weak' woman that she will err on the side of aggression, warmongering and pro-gun bluster. I used to think she was subverting her own ideals. Now it is clear she has no ideals other than the quest for power. posted 05/04/2008 at 23:58:41

so you are honestly trying to make people believe that John Mccain is going to win "California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, New Jersey"?

Assuming you're not simply clueless, there's a word for what you are trying to do here:

soph·ist·ry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

Here's all you need to know. In a dark red congressional district in Louisiana today, a democrat won a house seat for the first time in eons. What had been the GOP line of attack leading up to the election? The democratic candidate is 'linked" to Obama. hmmm... doubt they'll try that again. posted 05/04/2008 at 23:48:10

I wouldn't get so freaked out, showme54. I think it's because Obama gets most of the college and post-college educated people (elites), who are trained to find symbolism in life's events:
i.e., "Big Brown", "2nd place", "won't stop running after it's too late to win...", "must be stopped by organisers of the race"... etc.
It's less of an expression of their true feelings about the tragedy (of both Eight Belles and the Clintons) and more an intellectual outlet. Blowing off steam. Don't judge others until you attempt to understand them. posted 05/03/2008 at 23:06:06

There is a word for this kind of argument. Sophistry.

To summarize your argument: "Obama seems great. But things that are great sometimes aren't great. Therefore we should pick somebody we know for a fact isn't great."

Oh, and also: "Bush is an idiot. Bush was president. Therefore, if Obama becomes president, despite his proven brilliance, he's must be an idiot too."

P.s.: He has never voted to "pursue" the war-- he has voted to continue funding the soldiers until we end the war. What kind of lunatic would cut off funds to our soldiers in Iraq without getting them out of there first. Really... if you advocate that, you are irresponsible. posted 04/20/2008 at 01:09:50

wow. This man is doing his union membership no favors in trying wound the democratic nominee. posted 04/19/2008 at 15:24:23

I know that Hillary will endorse him and be cool about it and we'll all be a big happy democratic family taking the country back! It's gonna be amazing to watch-- but after 8 years of hell, american's would genuinely have to be self-loathing or cruel to continue with the republican mayhem. posted 04/19/2008 at 03:07:11

what're you talking about? You went to a law school full of tax evaders? What the heck does this have to do anything? posted 04/19/2008 at 03:01:40

The only thing she's been effective at is convincing close to 2 out of 3 Americans she is a liar, and squandering the good will and affection felt for her husband.

Many of us defended her and her husband against the horrible tactics which she is now gleefully employing against our next president. It's sad. But, it's restoring my faith in america to see that the country is rejecting her campaign for these very reasons. Obama is about to do something that seemed literally impossible just one year ago: become the first genuinely intelligent, thoughtful and sensible President of the USA! posted 04/19/2008 at 02:58:16

--"the only people getting f**** by that attitude are other writers struggling to feed their own families-- and with the kind of royalties and work mr. ridley's had, if he cant make it through a few months like the rest of the writers, he is either living beyond his means or or unwilling to make some adjustments for the good of others. The fact that under 20 writers out of 12,000 chose to go fi-core demonstrates that it was not a choice of necessity, but of indifference-- or greed.

I don't know how the guy lives with himself, honestly-- I have many friends who lost good money because of the strike-- and they chose to get other jobs, take the free loans from the union, or dip into savings. Without the rest of us, Ridley would be a pawn of the corporate studios. Our only hope for fair treatment is if we stick together. posted 04/19/2008 at 21:41:52

A VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY. posted 04/18/2008 at 20:27:12

Robin... I hope you are able to think through how ignorant it is to call a black candidate for president of the US racist. In fact, it is pathological-- what shrinks call "projection".

--Hillary has been a member of a church which has been unashamedly white for 2,000 years-- and condoned slavery for 90% of that time.
--Barack meant to defend his grandma by saying she is an "ordinary" white person--"Typical" was a poor choice of words because it is a buzz-word for people, but like anybody she has racial preconceptions-- you clearly do.
--The vilification of immigrants has been engineered by GOP as cover for economic policies which hurt working class whites. If you dont see or understand that, you need to read more about it.
- The comments of Rev. Wright were addressed to the Governmnet of the US, not the poeple. And I challenge you to disprove a single thing he said.
-- You can hide behind your charge of "reverse racism" (nonsensical because racism implies a power advantage) or you can open your mind and join the young and progressive minded people who are hungry for a better nation and are backing Obama and defending him against backward, fearful, ignorant baiters like yourself.
--why cant we all get along? posted 04/18/2008 at 16:32:53

Obama has never once said she should get out. But I think it's disturbing how defensive the hillary people are getting about this without offering anything resembling a logical argument for how she wins this. But, her campaign apeals to dysfunction I guess. The only backlash here is against Clinton and her deranged narcissism. The polls show how self-destructive her campaign has become. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:58:41

Astute political analysis. Massachusetts will go republican this november. And the flying pigs will ice-skate in hell with the tooth fairy and big foot. posted 04/15/2008 at 04:58:34

Rosen is creating an important new class of journalists, the "citizen journalists". Sounds fancy, sounds like maybe Lecturer Rosen could wrangle a book out of it-- becuase surely he's not a "citizen professor"-- he needs to eat. But this project is vapid and bankrupt.. The name is an offense to those who study and learn and perfect a craft-- the global instant audience is unearned and dangerous. These people are not journalists-- they are neophytes:untrained, part-time, biased, partisan, unprofessional, and unbeholden most of all to the ethics and concerns which regulate the true journalists who need to keep their jobs.

To sum up that rant: Citizen Journalists are like people slinking around selling pirated DVD;s on the sidewalks of NY-- you will get a "version" of the truth, but it would be professionally done, it won't have good quality tech specs, it won't have the right color-timing, sound-mixing, music,focus, etc... you can get the basic gist of the story-- but not presented in a way which places it into context, analysises the issue from both sides, sets a historical perspective and most of all ALLOWS the MISQUOTED VICTIM to explain himself. posted 04/15/2008 at 05:40:27

With supporters like these....
Mayhill may have just cost herself $2,300, because something "sounded" funny about Obama speaking to voters like adults.

Oh, and people are dying in Iraq.. did someone mention that? posted 04/15/2008 at 05:21:40

Noooo. All this acadmic babble can't rationalize away the fact that "off the bus" is just speeding the descent into real-time "gotcha" politics-- where the whole thing is like a game-show. Fowler and this guy and everybody else around here knows exactly what Obama's point is, and it's irrefutable-- and yet, the haughty self-importance of rushing this piece out because the words and syntax he chose violated campaign rules.

The only concern Professor (or should we say "Lecturer") Rosen seems to have is that his name and his project weren't mentioned by Tim Russert.

Meanwhile, people are dying in Iraq. Oh, but that sounds so trite and quaint and elitist. posted 04/15/2008 at 05:19:05

a lot of those kids with all the freedom in the 70s are still dealing with buried feelings of insecurity, abandonment and fear--which probably accounts for all the angry emails you've been getting-- you're now everybody's surrogate mom!
who's to judge, It all depends on the kid, but it's probably more damaging to make your kid a mascot for your new website and drag him around on your press junkets. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:40:31

sadly, I think the most salient detail in this bizarre post is your use of Obama's middle name, which is an instant red-flag for xenophobic fear and ignorance--suprising because you are clearly foreign-born and therefore should theoretically have a better appreciation for the true value of the founding principles of america as an open society.
However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your arguments on their face. So, let me see if I follow your logic. Your argument for Clinton seems to be based on:
1. Clinton is losing in delegates and popular vote (even with florida, where obama did not campaign and had none of the name recognition and establishment support of clinton)
2. the internet bubble occured in the 1990s which also coincided with Hillary Clinton's husband's term in the white house.
3. Bobby kennedy ran for president.
I think your argument against obama needs a little refining. maybe I'm missing something, but I have no idea why you do not support obama-- and even less clue why you support clinton, if you even do. posted 04/08/2008 at 07:33:37

Trin, you forgot to mention he got nominated to represent the democratic party in the presidential election of 2008, running against the establishment candidate and overcoming incredible historical odds. seems like a pretty impressive accomplishment to me at the age of 46. but, yeah, he's just some "ignorant" nobody. you make me laugh. come up with a reason, any reason for your hostility to obama (and not the meaningless "rezko" echo or some totally irrelevant anti-islamic jingoism-- if that's the best you can do, you are honestly wasting your time with this. He's gonna be president, he's a brilliant guy, why not appreciate our good fortune and find another outlet for your self-loathing. posted 04/08/2008 at 07:14:42

uh, see response to your doppelganger "trnidad 707" directly above. posted 04/08/2008 at 07:06:42

1.obama said he would launch missile strikes against al qaeda in pakistan. You don't want a president to do that? really? you want a president to ask permission to take out terrorist leaders in remote mountains within pakistani borders? you realize the us govt has launched missile strikes in pakistan at least 3 times since obama made the statement.
2. you honestly believe it is hypocritical to cut off funding to our soldiers before pulling them out of a war zone?
3. the babble you are repeating here is so incredibly disingenuous and anti-american, you demonstrate how desperately we need a leader like obama with a fluid and critical intelligence. I can't wait!! posted 04/08/2008 at 07:04:14

stevie, now I feel bad, honestly, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or accuse you of anything, my point was just that it seems pretty clear that you are using this issue disingenuously and opportunistically to diminish a candidate, when you clearly could care less about the claims you are making.
And I think your statement above indicates why Obama may be choosing to keep a low racial profile--people like yourself who harbor fears that he will not "support" Americans who do not have the same pigmentation as he does. A fear that is understandable given the culture many white americans inhabit, but one that is utterly unfounded and completely uwarranted.

My point was simply that the "black community" you referenced in your (borderline racist) post are not monolithically supporting obama because they want him to show up at "black" events-- but because --like all americans--they want a president who will deal with the housing crisis, the healthcare crisis, the war in iraq and terrorism. He is obviously the best man for that jab and In order to do that he has to get elected. Winning Indiana would clinch it, hence his appearance in Indiana that day. THAT's how the guys going to help all of us.
Getting sucked into identity politics by phonies like yourself who probably had no idea the event in Memphis was even happening until you saw it on fox news. posted 04/08/2008 at 13:55:50

"If" you were cornell west you would be disappointed, but as a white american you clearly could care less and are using this a wedge against the guy. get a life. Obama will return the support of the black community when he wins indiana, wins the presidency and begins to undo the damage to all american communities of the past 8 years. posted 04/08/2008 at 07:56:34

Dr. West, I have long admired the brilliant creativity of your thinking for many years, but in my humble opinion you are WAY, WAY, WAY off the mark with this one. Dr. King, among many things, was a political mastermind--he had a very fluid and complex understanding of American politics and showed great dexterity in navigating the political spectrum. I don't need to point out the stunning circumstances of barack obama's presidential run to state that it is disingenuous at best and indeed opportunistic of you to post a blog on huffpo deriding the man as power-hungry and insufficiently cognizant of the great legacy he is carrying on even as he negotiates the hate-filled attacks on him for that vey legacy (as you well know Dr. Wright's sermons pale "controversy" with the aggresive posture of Dr. King's later speeches). Give the man a break. He is doing what even many of king's cohort (i.e. Congressman Lewis) thought was literally impossible less than a year ago. posted 04/08/2008 at 07:52:45

stopped reading at this sentence: "Many Obama supporters seem to feel that if the sexism is directed at Senator Clinton then it's not so bad -- it's even amusing".

it is this exact sort of nutty self-righteous victimhood that makes younger americans of both genders cringe at the drumbeat of gloom coming from the old guard feminists who cast every argument against their candidate in terms of gender dynamics circa 1970. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:27:20

A "silly" speech in which he accurately described the ethnic rivalries that would be unleashed by the war... a scenario that McCain still doesn't have a firm grasp of.
I admit, most clear thinking people understood this about the war-- but not Hillary and not McCain. Nothing silly about that. it's the most crucial part of this campaign for people who are concerned about US foreign policy. posted 04/01/2008 at 03:12:11

Buster, once again showing the desparate attempts to parse words ---the statements you're referring to follow his assertion that his anti-war position was MORE than a speech--it was a platform he carried through his US senate campaign. He said that to indicate he carried the message beyond the speech and into the campaign... what is hard to understand about that?

It's like saying he "lied" about being a professor-- the University of Chicago had to issue a press release stating that he IS a professor just to silence the Clinton apologists.

If these are the best examples you can come up with of his dishonesty than the man is more truthful than you me or anyone we know. posted 04/01/2008 at 03:09:51

no. I think it has more to do with the shockingly jovial and animated way she told the story on multiple occasions -- with SUCH conviction. I don't think she knew she was lying-- which may be more scary, and probably evident of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) --look up the symptoms, it's pretty clear she has it. posted 04/01/2008 at 03:01:48

What? He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He wrote the speech about race himself-- very few politicians do that. Say what you will about him, but the guy is academically brilliant.

Unless, you're making some kind of affirmative-action statement-- ferraro style.

See, the great thing about Nora's post is that she obviously has enough self-knowledge and awareness (as a dramatist) to perceive that these impulses to denigrate and put down Obama are really all about the internal conflicts in the people who identify directly with Hillary. If more people understood this, like Nora, this primary would be a lot happier. posted 04/01/2008 at 02:56:48

..OK, now get a post-it and write a note to yourself, Son, this is even simpler:

--the superdelegates are not going to give the "magic number" to the candidate who is trailing after a 6 month primary season.

--NOT. IN. A. MILLION. YEARS.

--so, since it is a mathematical certainty that Obama will will ahead, it follows he is our nominee. We know this now-- and yet nobody can do anything about it until Clinton graciously concedes. But, hey, if she wants to play it out for the sake of her supporters, I have no problem with that, but she cannot attack the guy who will be our nominee, she MUST go after McCain. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:26:26

1. yes,drbla, we all know you need supers to win. the point is the superdelegates are not going to overturn the results of a 5 month .5 billion dollar primary season. So, she's just prolonging the agony for everybody.
2. if you're actually interested in the political landscape, do a little research-- obama will win nw and midwest states that clinton won't: WA, OR, MN, MO, CO, IL. In addition to traditional blue states . He will win in a landslide in Nov. For what it's worth, she would probably have won in Nov. as well.
3. obama played the race card by being black? what a disgusting op-ed. I can't believe people still think like this. I can't wait until the next generation is in charge-- next year. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:15:52

"clinton leads in electoral college votes"--- WHAT? that's like saying, well, Obama is winning the basketball game, but Clinton has more touchdowns.
what a disingenous piece of drivel-- and the old Democratic Party of Bill Press relished a fight so much it allowed Ronald Reagan to unseat an incumbent after a drawn out primary. You are not going to win this argument with half-truths and nonesense-- the ONLY way Clinton will win is with Superdelegates overturning the results of the last 5 months of voting. If you're cool with that, then you won't have to worry about the Democratic party changing too much from the way you liked it, because it won't exist. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:06:05

what are the numbers? If counted as is how many delegates would each get from each state. posted 03/30/2008 at 23:58:34

Why is Carville persisting in keeping the Richardson endorsement of Obama in the news cycle? His anger over this only serves to make the endorsement more powerful as a statement of Clinton's loss of appeal even to those who have steadfastly promised to support her...
What is really happening here is one of two things:
1.) Carville is desperately trying to salvage his reputation-- he made an amatuer-hour gaffe with the judas thing and has been on a campaign to prove to everybody that the statement was "intentional" and "well-thought out" so as to maintain his reputation as a savvy svengali.
or.
2.) more likely, this is a direct Tony Soprano style message to other super-delegates: you want your name dragged through the mud on the news shows? Go ahead, switch sides on us, see what we do to you... posted 03/28/2008 at 00:13:45

Big sid, here's how a true american leader answers the questions about the divisive, racist Sean Hannity-generated 'scandal': "Senator Obama has addressed the issue fully, it's not my place to speculate any further, let's move on and talk about the economy". posted 03/26/2008 at 04:03:55

maybe these polls are why she just piled on with the wright-haters today, after taking the high road for a week or two. She said she would've never stayed with him as pastor. wow, really bold leadership, making that statement. what a cheap shot. she also would never have represented south chicago in the state senate for 8 years with that attitude. posted 03/25/2008 at 15:04:17

ha. great point. lol. posted 03/25/2008 at 19:36:54

thanks, Jane. I totally agree. Which is why the idea that Clinton's top aide Harold Ickes was the guy who diqualified florida and is now calling obama a cheat for following the rules is beyond cynical. As are hillary and barack's inconsistent, self-serving arguments about seating those delegates,. posted 03/21/2008 at 18:25:28

wow. I thought I was getting too obsessed with this campaign. An impressive post, and I commend you for taking the time to think about it and compose it. And seeing this makes me sad because there is so much intellegence and energy and resourcefulness on the democratic side that is being WASTED on bringing down democrats with "points" that we all know we'd be dismissing if they came from the right. this is true of both hillary and obama people and it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. we need to be unleashing this effort on the right wing war mongers! Not each other! Please, people, we need to stop this before it is too late. posted 03/20/2008 at 23:57:43

this is not an anti-hillary picture at all. clearly you see this through a divisive lens, which is the point the obama campaign is trying to make. Think of how amazing it would have been, had Clinton come out at the beginning of this "scandal" and said, "Wright said bad things, but I know wright is devoted to his community and loves his country. And he certainly doesnt speak for barack obama. Lets discuss the issues." Bam. Story over. Clinton regains his aura and credibility among libs/african-americans. Hillary scores points as a uniter. The democratic party becomes a party of unity again. But, no. Clinton didn't do that. All this picture proves is that he could have and chose not to.
posted 03/20/2008 at 23:45:45

Ha. Touche. But it sounds like you disagree with most of the news outlets you are tuning in to, so I suggest you watch fox. they're offering the stories you are looking for. hannity's radio show is non-stop obama hating and race-baiting. posted 03/20/2008 at 23:26:43

what is wrong with you, biglib? honestly. now that you're counting "points", everything you stood for is completely tossed away. now, you believe bush admin corruption is 'just a distraction' because it doesn't help your candidate du jour? this might be nothing, or it might be watergate. The only thing we know is that in typical bush admin. fashion, the people we need to trust in our government are ethically bankrupt. This is what happens when we "downsize" government and hire outside contracters (read: paying private businessmen for doing government work; read Bush cronies getting our taxes: read halliburton; read rich get richer at taxpayers' expense)--integrity is not a priority for bush admin. contractors. take a deep breath. let go of the blinding fixation you have with winning at all costs, and get back to the business of making our country work again. posted 03/21/2008 at 01:54:13