litmus

Wrepublicans: Just Wrong. posted 05/17/2008 at 11:29:48

pot. kettle. black.

you just revealed yourself to be the laughingstock of huffington post! congratulations. posted 04/23/2008 at 18:32:03

should anyone doubt that morning joe is a blowhard who can't take what he likes to dish out, this clip proves the point. poor little fella didn't know what him when someone refused to let him interrupt rudely and talk all over them.

gotta love rachel maddow and her ability to cut right through the bullshit on just about every subject. we need more of her and less of empty suits like joe. posted 04/17/2008 at 20:41:44

i'll ignore the two egregious grammatical errors in your post above and keep my comments to the gist of what you're trying to say.

regarding hate: i can't speak for michelle obama or reverend wright, nor would i ever presume to do so. but i do know what i hate. and that is the fact that profound ignorance draping itself in the flag is still so prevalent in this country. i imagine you, nick1936, driving around with your "support the troops" magnet plastered on the back of your car and a fraying "america: love it or leave it" sticker on the bumper below. you probably pine for the day when blacks couldn't vote and women "knew their place."

i love the fact that this country allows for people with wildly divergent opinions and beliefs to co-exist relatively peacefully. but it saddens me to think that our public education system is so underfunded that your fisher-price brand of patriotism hasn't been completely eradicated by now. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:31:53

is that moe as in three stooges moe? your comments would indicate as much. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:43:35

how long would you be willing to use a segregated bathroom? sit in the back of the bus? not have the right to vote?

i can see why you're 'frustrated' in ohio. your capacity for seeing the bigger picture is clearly limited. posted 04/07/2008 at 15:36:53

unless you were there last night, you can't really make an informed judgment regarding who is being objective here, can you? i suggest you read mayhill's other posts and then speak to me about objectivity.

you brand me an 'obamaphile' without knowing anything about why i support his candidacy. i think i speak for many obama supporters when i say that we aren't looking for a messiah, a savior, or a cult of personality. what we want is a return to a representative democracy. if this people-powered campaign is successful, then more darcy burners and donna edwards will prevail in local races and the beltway/lobbyist/monied-interest-driven candidates will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

you may be satisfied with the status quo (pick your brand: Hillary Blue or McCain Red - it ain't nothin' but a label change), but many of us are not. relax, though. even you, the whiny naysayers, will benefit from a rejuvenated democracy. posted 04/07/2008 at 14:58:10

i was at this very same event last night. there was no "cockiness" in his response to this question (a rather lame one, i thought, given the senator was only going to answer four questions in the time allotted). what i heard (and i would posit most others did as well) was exasperation on having to address this issue time and time again. it's the 'experience' meme/canard put forth by people like you.

your snarky little post reveals more about you than it does about senator obama. here's what i read into this dismissive bit of faux reportage: you're a hillary supporter. you're upset that your candidate of choice is going to lose. you, like many, think that washington experience trumps good judgment and moral character when it comes to leadership. i just quickly browsed your previous posts here and what do you know... i think i'm pretty dead on with my musings.

if you need a refresher course in what really defines cockiness, look no further than the campaign strategy deployed by the clinton machine from day one. in fact, senator obama spoke to this issue last night when he talked about clinton's "only five states matter" policy. but i'm guessing you were already composing the vapid drivel posted above at that point. it's easy to see how you missed the real messages conveyed last night. it's the same approach the clinton campaign has taken and why they're about to see what losing is all about. posted 04/07/2008 at 13:42:01

let's see... which example would you prefer to digest first? the one noted in this story? about obama's comments on sunday encouraging clinton to remain in the race as long as she likes? (or would you prefer to let folks other than the candidates be the official campaign spokespeople? like geraldine ferraro or mark penn, perhaps?)

or we could take a look at the bosnia lies... those were interesting. how about peace in ireland? perhaps you'd care to take a stroll down memory lane and revisit clinton's appearance on 60 minutes where she claimed that obama isn't a muslim "as far as i know."

i can see why you call yourself FrustratedDem. it must be terrible to watch a talented, smart individual compromise herself and her stated principles six ways from sunday in the pursuit of power. normally, i'd feel sympathy for the individual lacking enough self-awareness to recognize blind ambition. unfortunately, in this case, the entire party is getting thrown under the bus as well. so perhaps a refresher course in democracy is in order. here are the priorities for allegiance, made simple for those who apparently don't understand them:

1) country
2) party
3) individual

clinton's campaign at this point serves only number 3. posted 04/01/2008 at 11:48:41

LOL! you're actually linking to world net daily! now that is funny. as in "my god, can you believe there are idiots out there who actually post links to sites like WND?" funny. which, if one stops to think about it for more than a nanosecond is not really funny after all. it's just sad and pathetic. bye bye, kb. how's the water over at LGF these days? putrid as ever too? posted 03/28/2008 at 19:21:12

repeat after me, jimmy: loyalty to country trumps loyalty to political benefactors. of course, if you had any sense of that, you wouldn't get within a mile of mary matalin. anyway, i hear you're moving out of D.C. that's a good start. just please stay away from san francisco. posted 03/27/2008 at 23:28:07

this has to be the most hilarious juxtaposition of user name and commentary i've ever seen on this site.

if you're so concerned with the candidates' religious affiliations (quite frankly, i wish we could have an atheist running and put all of this mumbo jumbo behind us), you might want to consider what hillary is up to as well. start here: http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php

by the way, check your caps lock key. it's either stuck or you're deliberately 'shouting' in your comment (and your comment is so lame, it might be best if you kept your volume down to a minimum). posted 03/26/2008 at 16:54:39

well said. this 'party over country' bullshit is what has led us to the disastrous place in which we find ourselves today.

kristendom540 (is that a little play on 'christendom'? scary.) must have been either absent or asleep during that civics course in high school. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:54:45

jesus, joe. you are relentless. but i suppose those are the marching orders for you and the other clinton surrogates. "go forth and destroy. take no prisoners. leave no ground unscorched."

this part of your self-aggrandizing post is particularly revealing:

"Finally, the Obama campaign pushed a compliant press corps...into hyping a mini-pseudo-scandal: whether Hillary "misspoke" about being under sniper fire when she paid a visit to Tuzla in Bosnia in 1996. In fact, the then-First Lady was told the plane was diving to land to avoid possible sniper fire. Whether there was or not is irrelevant. Anybody who has been involved in these situations, as I have, knows this."

here's what those of us paying attention know: hillary clinton lied about her experience. she did not 'dodge sniper fire'. no amount of spin or verbal misdirection can change that fact. she also lied about her involvement in brokering the peace in ireland. these are not misstatements, they are lies. willful, deliberate lies meant to bolster a weak resume.

we don't need another liar-in-chief. of all people, you should be in agreement on that point. but, as i've commented before, your indignation in the face of truth trampling is rather selective, isn't it? in light of the smear job perpetrated on you and your wife by the roves and bushes of the world, your willingness to look the other way when someone in your own party is lying is particularly galling. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:44:06

clintons: please go away. now. buh-bye. was fun for a while in the 90s. then, not so much. now? not at all. posted 03/21/2008 at 18:23:54