mikekev58

Well, you lefties in the UK may be the ones who are supposed to have the sense of humor, but the left wing in America is dead serious. They don't find things funny. I swear, they threw me to the middle because I have a sense of humor.

There are funny leftward tilting comedians, but I've yet to see a political leftie who could laugh at himself/herself all that easily. Except maybe Al Gore. And I'm serious about that. posted 07/16/2008 at 20:13:03

Who's Hippocrotis? posted 07/16/2008 at 20:09:07

Well stated, Cat.

But to be fair and balanced, we have voices of reason coming from all spheres of life. People don't get their heads chopped off anymore; look at Olbermann. Oh, right, you did say the fool was allowed to...

But Syrianly, anyone who limits their source of reasoned voices to Stewart and Colbert strikes me as pretty lazy. posted 07/16/2008 at 20:07:50

You mean you wouldn't have noticed it was The New Yorker, a magazine noted for satirical cartoons? If so, I really think the first part of your third sentence is inaccurate.

The only notoriety the cover got was because once again the MSM is always looking for the easy thing to use as the hook.

Tempest in a teapot. posted 07/16/2008 at 20:03:57

G-d! If it's spoofing the lunacy going around about Obama, it's also spoofing the notion that an American Muslim leader would be part of what's being depicted.

And Jon Stewart is a comedian; for G-d's sake, his line about Muslim extremists getting upset at cartoons WAS A JOKE, referencing the world wide reaction to the Dutch editorial cartoons of recent memory.

Yeah, it shows the ignorance of people who believe this s#@t ! That's what it's intending to do.

Wait until Obama appears on Vanity Fair as an Alfred E. Newman look-alike!

Lighten the eff up, people! posted 07/16/2008 at 20:02:19

he wrote "clueless elitists".

Merriam-Webster online gives "snobbery" as a synonym for elitism, ergo elitists are snobs.

But, whether you like it or not, in common American parlance, elitist is pejorative, because it conjures up images of people who are out of touch with real life.

So, bluestatelib was being redundant, for emphasis I'll bet. posted 07/16/2008 at 19:55:14

Well, I've only seen the media playing up the tension that Gramm's comments have caused in the McCain criticism, even showing a tape of McCain extolling Gramm's preeminence in economic matters back when McCain tapped him for the campaign.

Obama used the Gramm gaffe well, "American already has one Dr. Phil...."

Then again, McCain helped himself out by musing that he'd consider Gramm for an ambassadorship to Belarus. posted 07/13/2008 at 14:20:42

Well...I'm 60 and thanks to my 22 year old daughter, I've got Wilco on my iPod (Jesus, Don't Cry is a great song).

Matter of fact, my daughter drove to Boston for a Wilco concert and she called me from the concert, said "Listen to this dad", then held the phone up so I could hear, "Tall buildings shake, voices escape singing sad, sad songs...."

A real special moment.

Maybe I can vote for this guy after all. posted 07/13/2008 at 14:14:05

Bernie Mac will be Bernie Mac and the media will be the media.

To be honest, I hadn't heard anything about this until I came to the blogs.

But you can be sure the GOP will at least consider what, if any, value Obama's response to Mac will present to the McCain camp. posted 07/13/2008 at 14:05:01

Mindlessmissy...mindless comment. posted 07/13/2008 at 13:58:17

Yeah, that's what I found strange. After all the problems with misogyny and sexism on the part of part of the media, and from a particular female stand up comic turned liberal commentator, you'd think adding a "brush off" kind of comment would be the last thing to come from Obama.

That members of the audience weren't that happy with Mac says something. Expressing unhappiness with a stand up comedian's routine is not thin skinned. It's part and parcel of what taking the stage as a comic is about. And that the displeasure extends beyond those in attendance is also to be expected when one is performing - "a surprise visit" - at an event for a major political candidate, whose credibility on some key issues has already been called into question.

As someone posted, if you let Bernie Mac take the stage, you better expect Bernie Mac's take on humor. But the paying customers didn't invite Bernie, so I'd cut them a little slack as far as being off put by his routine in this setting. Bernie will be Bernie, and that's great; I'm a fan.

But if you're going to chide him, don't muddy the water with "I'm just messing with you, man." posted 07/13/2008 at 13:56:42

"Support Obama wholeheartedly, without reservation or equivocation" - say what?

This is not what Obama asked of his supporters. He asked them for criticism, and he surely didn't promise to support his constituents the way you describe. He said there would be disagreements, and I would hope everyone understands that critical thinking - i.e., reservations about positions taken and then reversed - would be fully engaged.

He asked to be held accountable and support without reservation sounds an awful lot to me like giving him a pass on anything and everything. He expects more from us than that. posted 07/11/2008 at 08:59:22

Well, of course Donald should go tell the Kossacks to chill out. I mean, Canada has a strong equivalent to the 4th amendment right? And I suppose that the Canadian government spies on its citizens regularly, yet hockey and beer and the natural beauty goes on undisturbed, right?

"He is our last best hope"?

As another poster wrote, this is messianic. Rather than thank Sutherland, those of you who are defending Obama's reversals as politic or defending him as imperfect ought to be very strong in your rejection of this "last best hope" nonsense.

Is he a better choice than John McCain? No doubt. But the LAST best hope? No. As Obama himself has said, it's we, the people, who have to step up to the plate and that goes beyond voting in November.

America is said to be the last best hope of mankind. And we are America. No man, not even Obama, can get the country back on track without a serious, concrete, involved committment by a majority of Americans. posted 07/11/2008 at 08:55:30

A principled stand.

Oh..but she vote for the war...I forgot that cancels out any good she's done or will do. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:56:36

No, we don't do hate best.

I'm not a "love it or leave it" kind of guy, but hatred is not the defining characteristic of this country.

And if it is, why would you want to be part of it, i.e. "it's what WE do best". posted 07/16/2008 at 20:33:39

What are those 59% doing to make race relations better? posted 07/16/2008 at 20:31:55

WTF do the Clintons have to do with Jesse Jackson saying he was gonna cut off Barry's nuts?

When you don't have anything substantive to say, drag in the Clintons and wave them around.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Thanks for adding that word "cumulatively", then noting the Foundation and the library, which is not their personal income. Nor is the Senator's campaign war chest her personal income.

Now, their after tax income? Well, first you've acknowledged that they pay their taxes, which last time I looked was a good thing.
Secondly, unless you can demonstrate that their after or pre-tax income was ill-gotten, wtf is your point? posted 07/16/2008 at 20:28:58

John McCain has his own history of carousing and womanizing, not to mention his well known temper. I just don't see the McCain camp itself going there, but the 527s will.

Then it becomes fair for the pro-Obama 527s to counter those slimes, although I'd suggest they take the tack that you have taken, i.e., we made youthful mistakes but most of us learned from them.

It didn't take Obama until the age of 40 to recognize that he was going off the rails when it came to substance use or abuse. posted 07/08/2008 at 08:58:03

Obama doesn't want to go there, as he stated when asked about criticism of Michelle Obama.

Let's leave the wives out of this, please.

It's about the candidates, their character, their views, their proposed policies. posted 07/08/2008 at 08:55:13

Clinton...the gift that keeps on giving!

Of course, that Bush ignored "bin Laden determined to strike in the US" is completely ignored by wdw101.

So, if we're going to speculate, as it were:
Had Rice and Bush taken that briefing seriously...

And of course, wdw101 ignores, or is ignorant of, the opposition to offshore drilling that came from the states with valuable coastlines, including Florida. One of the biggest opponents of opening up drilling off the coast of Florida was Jeb Bush.

Clinton certainly had say so on Federal land, like ANWR, but despite the right wing's caricature to the contrary, the opposition to drilling there was bipartisan.

I'm sure willing to place responsibility where it belongs, including on my own shoulders as a less frugal consumer of energy. But just as I am not solely responsible for the role Americans' oil consumption has contributed to the current situation, I also will not lay total blame on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

By the same token, Bill Clinton's opposition to expanded oil drilling, along with the opposition that came from various governors, is not what has brought on $4+ a gallon for gas. posted 07/13/2008 at 13:30:57

Well, insofar as the legislature is part of the government, Senators govern in the broadest sense of that term in a democratic republic.
But even so, I was always taught that if you understood what the person meant - and I can't believe you don't understand what Ventura meant - then it's kinda boorish and pedantic to jump all over the speaker for being just slightly off the mark.
I don't know what the polls in MN are reflecting right now, but I think Franken will have a problem, because, goshdarnit, he's just not likeable enough. posted 07/05/2008 at 10:55:05

Compromise?

Don't both parties get something out of a compromise?

He's (We're) not getting the retroactive immunity out of the bill.

He's(We're) endorsing an expansion of executive power by voting for the bill.

What exactly did he (we) get out of this?

A promise to monitor the monitors who monitor the monitors?

Cripes, Bush took a sacred oath and the crapped all over it.

He's not Bush, I know. But you know what they say about power.... posted 07/04/2008 at 13:35:04

Actually, he's not her.

When asked in a debate about how she would respond to military advice against a withdrawal on the terms that she proposed, Hillary said that she would be the commander in chief and would be the one making the final decision. In other words, the military would have its advisory role but she would stick to her plan.

Now, she was criticized for that, of course, and to be fair, Obama's response to the same question was as nuanced as his clarification yesterday.

I'm not hight on Obama, but based on what I've read in the past, his statements yesterday are consistent with the position he's held all along regarding a withdrawal from Iraq.

However, watching his reversal on FISA '08, it's not hard to imagine him voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, had he been in the Senate at the time of that vote. And then he would've given a speech on the Senate floor, as Hillary did, stating that his vote was a vote for inspections and not for pre-emptive war. posted 07/04/2008 at 13:30:24

"This Bill says that the Telecom companies have immunity from civil prosecution. They can still be prosecuted criminally."

First, all individuals can do is file a complaint; it's the government that files criminal charges. And I sure don't hear Obama saying that he will do that for past offenses.

Also, I don't think it's out of the question that the same President who "requested" the telecoms to break the law will pardon those persons who were in executive, managerial and hands on regarding the illegal warrentless wiretaps. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if corporations can be criminally prosecuted, but if they can be then Bush will pardon them too.

This is the same president who pardoned a perjurer, and who has acted with impunity as he deemed executive power trumping the Constitution, federal law and Congressionally approved treaties. What does he care about public opinion? He's basically been given the green light by the Congress, and as so many "progressives" have pointed out, the whole FISA thing is not a major issue for the American people.

But, imagine that Bush does not pardon the telecoms or persons acting on their behalf. Will the Justice Department under Obama take on criminal prosecutions? And will a jury convict anyone who was acting in a time of national crisis at the "request" of the government, arguing that they acted in good faith for purposes of national security? It's possible, but the jury pool is not limited to progressives. posted 07/04/2008 at 13:23:33

I'm also a father and would want to take matters into my own hands, but that doesn't mean I would. Hate to sound like Mike Dukakis, and I know I'd be out of my mind if my child were raped, but it's the tough cases that are really the tests of whether or not one truly opposes the death penalty.

But, I empathize with eanderso. posted 07/03/2008 at 17:47:55

Trust him? This bill is something he said he would oppose. It's not just the telecom immunity. Obama gave an eloquent speech on the occasion of Chris Dodd's endorsement of Obama. In it, it's clear that he - back then - stood for the limitation of executive power and a return to FISA as it had been prior to the addition of the sunsetting amendment to the bill.

I just don't get it. This man was supposed to be a transformational figure. Instead he's a transmogrificational figure. posted 07/03/2008 at 17:35:02

Even when it's the same position?

The FISA bill is the bill Bush wants, the bill that Obama said he would oppose, the bill that grants expanded powers to the executive branch.

This is not just an "issue"; this is the Constitution. It's not okay when Bush ignores it and it's not okay when Obama (and any politician" goes along with it.

It is one thing to defer to the President's nominee to SCOTUS (something I'd disagree about), it's another thing to adopt the President's policy.

Cesca reveals what many thought about the Obama phenomenon: it's a cult of personality for people like Cesca. posted 07/03/2008 at 17:24:25

Double well said! posted 07/03/2008 at 17:21:50

This is not a white/black thing, madam.

This is about Obama's connections to developers and lenders in the Chicago area.

There are questions. This story may or may not deal with any of the questions regarding Obama's connections and what he knew and when he knew it regarding not just Rezko but about the conditions of public housing which was being managed by companies for which Obama (and other Illinois politicians) got subsidies.

I don't think we need to know Obama's FICO score, but I think Obama is skirting some potentially explosive issues regarding Chicago private/public partnerships in the management and building of public housing. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:49:13

Must not question The Candidate.

Must lash out at criticism of The Candidate.

Must use ad hominem against critics of The Candidate. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:44:17

Do they have a $1million plus mortgage? The rates on super jumbo mortgages are usually, in my experience in the business, a bit higher than on an average mortgage. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:42:38

What was it Jermiah Wright said about chickens coming home to roost?

Well, if you don't like WaPo's story, check out the Boston Globe, and Barry-O's connection to the private sector mismangement of public housing in Chicago, a partnership Barry-O is suggesting be a broadened national policy. posted 07/02/2008 at 17:01:41

so where's your response to the examples he gives?

I mean what you wrote was amusing, but non-responsive. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:07:15

And you don't think that Bush knows there's no criminal immunity...and you don't think that Bush doesn't have the balls to pardon the telecoms? posted 07/01/2008 at 00:05:59

And Obama WILL stiff Keith, you can take that to the bank. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:03:08

Last week he and Jonathan Alter were spinning like spiders after the filibuster got busted.

It truly was embarrassing. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:01:40

Does this make up for the embarrassing dissembling with Jonathan Alter last week? posted 06/30/2008 at 23:59:58

Double barf. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:58:50

I read a criticism of Olberman's bloviating, not an endorsement of immunity, retroactive or otherwise. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:58:47

Of course...he can't be hard on the guy who was the only one to come out of that room. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:56:26

Barf.

Read Glenn Greenwald's consideration of Olbermann at Salon. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:55:08

The question is not whether or not a soldier can become President; many former soldiers have become President, and I'm sure that low level clerks have risen to the top of their companies.
The question is does having military experience in and of itself qualify a person to be president.
The answer is obviously no, as ex-nominee John Kerry would attest. posted 06/30/2008 at 22:25:36

Well, I got "bad words deleted", so I'll clean it up.

Staash, you are a mindless, ignorant, slu*! ( apologies to Dan Akroyd) posted 06/30/2008 at 23:33:13

Well, a lot of what sound like Obamatrons seem to agree with rayboat, although for different reasons. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:30:44

A statement was issued, a statement which was far more enthusiastic than "I'd have to think about it."

I know it's too much to ask, but it's quite possible that Bill Clinton was staying out of the limelight for just the reasons given.

But Bill will always be Joseph to Putiphar's wife (Obamatrons). posted 06/30/2008 at 23:29:34

Ms. Morrison weasled her way out of any positive meaning she might have meant with that dubious title.

Ah, the more I read the Obamatrons, the better I feel about November. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:27:24

"It is a new world, and time for a new kind of leadership... "

Have you checked out who Barry-O's advisers are in foreign policy?

So, I take it you do not take Barry on his word that Hillary and Bill are good people?

And an FYI, the Clintons have not ruled the Democratic party since Al Gore got the nomination. That's the way it works.

And you better believe that the Democrats don't see Bill, one of their top fund raisers (as is Hillary), having a long road ahead of them in whatever negative sense you're giving it, M. Nochnoi.

No, I take Barry at his word that he needs Bill and Hillary. It's a shame you think the nominee is deceitful, or worse just putting on a show for the sake of politics...gosh, that is so 90s! posted 06/30/2008 at 23:26:04

And "Bros Not Hos" was worn by Ron Paul supporters, right?

That you would even suggest that the Clintons are racist is beneath contempt.

Are some of their supporters racist? No doubt.

But tell me some of the 90% of blacks who supporter Obama are not at least racially motivated, if not downright racist.

They're in every camp, ever ethnic group, and yes, in every race. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:19:34

We have a secret ballot in America for a reason. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:18:38

Boyz in the Hood is not racist; it's racial, like "Bros not Hos" is racial and misogynal. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:16:32

That's scary. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:15:32

Huh?

Rejection of his promise to aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee on the role of public finance in the campaign was part of his vision?

Embracing enhanced executive power of warrantless wiretapping AND retroactive immunity to telecoms?

Endorsing the death penalty for crimes not involving murder?

Embracing the SCOTUS decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban?

Now, I happen to agree with the last position (no, I don't own a gun), but I never said nothin' 'bout bannin' no guns. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:51:49

Although I agree the "under the bus" metaphor is getting old, sticking to words like reject, renounce, etc., would make life dull.

So don't throw under the bus under the bus. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:45:57

I thought Barry was leading a bowel Movement? posted 06/30/2008 at 23:41:58

Well stated Hume.

In fact, Bob Schieffer pretty much goaded Clark into the phrasing of his statement. Schieffer sounded desperate to get Clark to admit that McCain would be an effective President. Clark wouldn't agree, so Schieffer pulled the war hero card. To his credit, Clark didn't budge. Needless to say, Schieffer's part of the interview, which would provide a clarifying context, is nowhere to be seen or heard. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:40:44

John Stewart said it all regarding MoveOn, after showing the "you're not getting Alec(x) ad:

MoveOn: 10 years of proving that, even when you're on their side, they can still make you cringe. posted 06/30/2008 at 23:35:33

Oh, so you're okay with going back on "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee regarding the role of public financing in the campaign".

You would've been furious if he'd kept his word.

Huh. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:29:07

He allowed people to believe otherwise.

And they have only themselves to blame for their disappointment. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:27:51

Sure you did, because he said the exact opposite back then. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:25:35

or nobody.

Oh, right, he said he's running out of reasons to vote for Obama.

my bad. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:21:02

"the rape and murder of a child"

not to parse things too closely, but there is a coordinating conjunction in that sentence, implying that both elements have to be present to result in capital punishment.

Just sayin'. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:20:00

Gosh...I kinda missed that part of the last 8 years. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:19:46

"He can't win on principle alone."

What does it profit a man if he gains the world, but loses his soul.

"...making all his nowhere plans for nobody." posted 07/01/2008 at 00:17:40

No, FISA is not a kitchen table issue.

It's just a Fourth Amendment issue, so don't use the phone in the kitchen. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:17:23

And if you thought he wasn't a center candidate, you had a couple or more million other people with you. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:12:58

Al Gore ran to the middle?

That's not how I remember it.

Gore became even more the populist in the general election.

Obama is very reminiscent of John Kerry though.

And his nuanced take on things is refreshing, almost like Bill Clinton but lacking the charm. posted 07/01/2008 at 00:11:41

Leaders lead.

We know we'll never get through to Bush and Cheney, so that's just a silly suggestion.

Many expected Obama to stand on principle.

His vote, his responsibility. Context is one thing, but you're offering a tired rationalization.

His vote - and that of many Democrats - gives a whole new meaning to "loyal opposition". posted 06/29/2008 at 13:51:37

Ditto, rkrenke. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:45:00

He became a brand because he and Axelrod plotted a strategy to market him as the candidate of hope and change. Read Joe McGinniss' "The Selling of The President", a classic on the topic of marketing candidates.

And you can't be serious that he's preoccupied with batting away lunatic rumors? If he is, then he doesn't deserve anyone's vote, because he'll be so unprepared to take office. No, I think Barry is factoring in the lunatic vote when he and Axe consider their 50 state strategy.

But you're right that there are people who will vote against him because he's black, even if they don't realize that. But I suspect that the people who are VOTING for him because he's black, and who realize that's what's at least partially motivating them, will more than cancel out the "unaware bigots". posted 06/29/2008 at 13:39:40

Well, Barry is in lock-step with McCain/Bush regarding the Fourth Amendment.

I don't call that a "flaw".

I call that a sell-out.

Yet, it's still Obama's election to lose. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:34:00

You know, to me that "we" thing always sounded a bit like the royal We.

Just sayin'. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:32:42

"Oh, maintain your wonderful purity, no matter the cost.."

Wonderful Purity = Integrity.

"What does it profit a man if he wins the world but loses his soul?"

Oh, sorry, that's from a religious figure, and a Christian one at that. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:29:40

He SEEMS to be in it purely for self-aggrandizement?

Well, at least you're honest enough to allow for the possibility that Nader's motivations may not be as you paint them.

Is Ralph Nader trying to get attention? Duh! Is Barack Obama trying to get attention? Duh, again!

But the assumption is that because Obama is the nominee of a major political party, then the motivations of a man who has changed America - indeed the world - in ways that Senator Obama can only dream of - are suspect.

Nader can't win, so he must be in it just for his own ego.

No one need to defend how they cast their vote, but for Democrats to demonize Ralph Nader because he might cost Obama the election is indicative of the Democrats' uncertainty about their candidate.

He didn't cause Gore the 2000 election (see TN, AR, and Palm Beach county) and he won't cost Obama the 2008 election. If the Democrats can't win against a 71 year old man who represents the continuation of policies of the most unpopular president in history, then there is something very wrong with their message and their candidate. I mean I think that was the message we should've learned in 2004. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:27:19

You make sense, boycott.

The problem is that Barry-O was placed on the pedastal of change and hope and he did nothing to discourage the adulation, except for a few "aw shucks, I'm not perfect comments."

He aided and abetted the demonization of his opponent and of a former President in order to establish a "compare and contrast" campaign of "new" politics vs. the old politics that he was turning the page on.

Political winds have seem to blown that turned page back to where it had been. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:20:07

Isn't that a race-baiting comment, "eyes on the prize"? posted 06/29/2008 at 13:14:20

With all the talk of a "Movement" and a different kind of politics - a transformational politics - the word Messiah was never spoken, but it sure was implied.

Demonizing Hillary Clinton was necessary by the Obama campaign and their minions in the netroots because a god needs a force of evil to defeat.

No Clinton supporter is surprised by Barry-O's flip-flopping, but it's interesting to see the contortions and back-pedaling regarding Obama's "change we can believe in".

Hillary was right.
It's just change we can Xerox. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:11:03

We'll only get screwed in a McCain presidency if the Democratic controlled Congress continues to roll over for the executive branch.

And do NOT think that Barry will have an easy ride with a Democratic controlled Congress. Bill Clinton had to fight to get things done with the Dems in control, and while he's blamed for causing the loss of Congress to the Republicans, the unwillingness of the Dems to get things done suppressed Democratic turnout in '94, while the Republicans ran a fiendishly brilliant campaign, painting Clinton as a wild leftist - hah! - and running a national campaign that served up market tested pledges in the Contract With America, aka the Contract On America. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:08:43

My apologies, that link seems to have expired. Here's another:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-09-23-greenspan-globalization_N.htm

The fuller context of Greenspan's comment on Bill Clinton was that Greenspan was trashing the profligate spending by the GOP as well as the anti-free trade rumbles in the Democratic party.

I don't think it's a bad thing to have erased the Federal deficit, which was done to a large extent by that tax increase that passed without Republican support, and which Greenspan was not crazy about either.

We can debate what needs to be done regarding free trade, but globalization is a fact of life. The question is how to deal with the negative fallout from what appears to be unstoppable "transformative" economic phenomenon. posted 06/29/2008 at 12:59:43

First, how good is Alan Greenspan's judgement?
Greenspan Book Laments Course of Bush and G.O.P. - New York Times:
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/business/15cnd-greenspan.html -

As for Perot, polls of Perot voters indicated that they would split somewhat in favor of Bush 41, but not in a way that would've effected the electoral college outcome.

Bill Clinton presented himself as an agent of fiscal responsibility, i.e. "It's the economy, stupid", and I doubt that Alan Greenspan's approval meant anything other than Bill Clinton's positions on NAFTA and a few other fiscal matters.

Regarding Clinton's record, I do know that his first budget proposal passed both chambers without a single Republican vote, and in fact without many Democrat votes given that it passed both chamber by a single vote. He certainly reached bipartisan agreements on some things, but I doubt that Republicans would agree that Clinton was "the best Republican president we ever had". Given that two of my heroes are the Republicans Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, being called a Republican might not always be a bad thing.

The issue is not whether Barry is like President Clinton, but how does he compare to candidate Clinton? Given that the page was supposed to have been turned on the old politics, we are seeing that Barry, Inc. has been reborn as new practitioners of tried and true political strategery, i.e., the old politics. posted 06/29/2008 at 12:42:07

Would Nader be effective in office? We'll never know, but I highly doubt that a Congress bought and paid for by corporate America (see: FISA '08) would work with someone who will try getting to the root of what ails America.

Ralph Nader has been alive and speaking out over these past 8 - indeed these past 40 - years, but the media has grown tired of him. That you have not heard his voice is a result of the horse-race mentality of the MSM, and the rage of the "progressive" media that blames Al Gore's loss on Ralph Nader.

The fallacious notion that he cost Gore the 2000 election, when Gore could not win TN or AR, and the loony Democratic supervisor of Palm Beach county brought her arts and crafts talents to the design of the infamous "Butterfly Ballot", is sputtered by those who apparently do not think Obama can win with 3rd party competition. I thought this election was not even going to be close?

As Nader says, if the Democrats can not win it this year, given the public disapproval of Bush and the direction of this country - not to mention a GOP candidate who generates little enthusiasm and will have some votes taken away by Bob Barr - then the Democrats do not deserve to win. Nader notwithstanding, this is Obama's election to lose. If he does, it won't be Nader's fault and it won't be the fault of Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. posted 06/29/2008 at 12:22:52

And apparently you don't understand what that "FISA decision" really was about.

It was just a little item in those icky rights that were tacked on about 10 years after the framers drew up the original, flawed Constitution.

You're entitled to your "priorities".

And of course, you'll never know whether or not President Obama is truly "closely monitoring" the inspectors general's oversight of this horrendous, secret program.

On the other hand, you don't know if he'll ever get the chance to do that monitoring, because, though highly unlikely, he could lose the election. So rather than act on the "fierce urgency of now", the junior Senator from IL chose to offer up the possibility of monitoring the monitors of a program that has diminished your Fourth Amendment rights.

Yes, we all have our priorities. posted 06/29/2008 at 12:06:29

But at what point do you draw a line?

I mean, the FISA bill wasn't just about retroactive immunity for the telecoms, which Barry-O "strongly opposed". It was also about the expansion of executive branch powers to conduct warrantless wiretapings.

On public financing, it's sheer rationalization to say that the system is broken just because the RNC can raise more money than the DNC. Where was the "aggressive" pursuit of an agreement with the Republican nominee? A 20 minute meeting between lawyers is aggressive?

The fact is that for the "true believers", there is no line. It is all about winning because the other guy is scary. Okay, no problem; a lot of factors influence a person's vote.

I suspect that most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Barry-O, and those of us still on the fence, who are not being persuaded because of Obama's recent actions, won't matter anyway.

Yet one might wonder: what does it profit a movement to gain the White House while the driving force of that movement is gradually replaced by politics as usual. posted 06/29/2008 at 11:59:33

Actually, I've read articles and heard NPR do pieces on McCain's sleight of hand regarding public financing and the inability to get an FEC ruling because of the lack of a quorum there due to empty seats.

"BIll Clinton was as close to being a Republican as a democrat by the time he left office. "

I hardly think the Republicans thought that to be true.

Bill Clinton was part of the dreaded DLC, the bane of "progressives", and while he attempted to make some major changes, he was thwarted by his own party, e.g. Sam Nunn re gays serving openly in the military, and the 1st budget proposal passed in each chamber by one vote. Clinton's own party ran scared from his fiscally responsible offering, as it did on universal health care. So, you're right: the Democratic Congress, assuming that they hold or improve on the majority, will determine the fate of Obama's proposals. And history suggests that Democrats are harder on their own presidents than they are on Republican presidents.

And for anyone to presume that Hillary attended prayer meetings for the purpose of political networking is arrogance of the lowest order, given that arrogance can never be of a high order.

But then at HuffPo, everything Clinton = bad,craven political motivation;
Everything Barry-O = pure, brilliant strategy, a means to a greater good.

And of course everyone knows that the ends do not justify the means. posted 06/29/2008 at 11:47:10

So, that's why Joe Lieberman should've been elected in the original CT primary, because he sure was "whoever" on the Democratic ballot.
And how about Zell Miller? Big D next to his name, too.

Contrary to Obama--think, Democrats do retain the power of critical thinking. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:59:43

"Scorched earth, all-or-nothing campaign"?

You haven't seen a scorched earth, all-or-nothing campaign.

Although "and oh did I mention he's black?" says something about what's about to roll out from The Movement's Machine.

Scorched earth. What a joke! posted 06/28/2008 at 13:58:07

First, it's "here, here".

Second...oh hell, with "hear, hear" there's no point in saying anything else. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:53:44

"We've got to get it together sooner or later..."

Bill Clinton has stayed out of the limelight, doing what he was told to to by so many HuffPosters and other "progressive" bloggers during the primary.

The speculation on his state of mind and emotions is just that: pure speculation.

And painting someone, who has, in the words of Jesse Jackson, done great good for civil rights, as a race baiter is not equivalent to "mother jokes" in the playground.

Methinks Alfred E. would be a better forename. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:52:49

Well, he was painted as a race-baiter in an Obama campaign memo, and quite a few on HuffPo and other "progressive:" sites painted Bill (and Hillary) as racists.

Barry-O's campaign exploited the willful misreading of Hillary's "June primary" remark, intimating that she was alluding to the possible assassination of her rival (I know, the received wisdom at HuffPo is that she was not alluding to it, she was planning on it).

Yeah, Bill Clinton deserves an apology.

But whatever, nothing in this unnamed sources post can know what is in Bill Clinton's heart and mind.

I'd ask for the benefit of the doubt regarding Bill Clinton, but I don't believe in miracles. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:47:20

"He never takes responsibility for his own actions."

Sounds like Barry-O re:TUCC's influence, other questionable associations, going back on his word re: public financing, FISA 08, the DC gun ban, with more to come.

"And, oh, did I mention that he's black?"

Well, he never did promise he wouldn't play the race card, but one could infer from the bogus claims (see Obama campaign memo re: Clintons' race-baiting) his campaign made re: the Clintons that he would be above that. posted 06/28/2008 at 13:02:53

"Call out the instigators!"

Only the perceptions of the Obamatrons are pure and consistent with reality; all who see things differently are self-deluding.

"...there's something in the air."

Indeed! posted 06/28/2008 at 12:58:51

Was there one named source in this post? Good Lord! Is this a Vanity Fair writer?

Let's think back a bit...the primary is still going on...Barack Obama travels to John Edward's house, presumably to talk about an endorsement.

Now I know that Obamatrons believe both Clintons are race-baiters, if not out and out racists, so they might not want to read any further.

If Obama can travel to Edwards mansion, why not make a trip to Chappaqua for a sit-down with the former President of the United States? Someone can tip off the media, like they did with the visit to Edwards, and we can get an overhead shot of Bill leading Barack back to his SUV. Just don't expect hugs, not even the half-hearted type that Edwards gave to Obama.

Having made that brilliant suggestion, I think Bill Clinton ought to keep his distance from the Obama campaign. I supported Hillary and I love both Clintons, but while they are great fundraisers, Bill does not have a solid record of helping the candidates for whom he campaigned win elections. Besides, he is doing the Lord's work with the WJC Foundation.

Finally, I honestly don't know how either of them can stand next to that man. As I've said before, they're better people than I am. posted 06/28/2008 at 12:54:50

The $2300 was to help retire Hillary's campaign debt, and it was a very generous gesture by Obama and Michelle.
Obama does not need any help with retiring a campaign debt yet, and probably never will.
What Carville does with his money has no value, symbolic or otherwise, when it comes to Barack Obama's coffers.
I think I heard that Carville is going to give $2300 to help Bill Richardson retire. posted 06/28/2008 at 14:17:48

But I thought the problem during the primary was that the Clintons were race-baiting, pointing out that Obama was black, i.e., African-American?

Now, the election is all about electing the first African-American president and the legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton will depend on to what degree they support him as the first African American nominee of a major political party who stands on the brink of winning the White House?

Is this a set-up or what?

There are many more positive contributions to the legacies of Bill and Hillary Clinton than could be iwiped out by a perceived lack of support for the first viable, almost-a-shoe-in-to-win-the-election- African-American presidential nominee.

But in the end, it's Putiphar's wife:

If Barry-O wins, it will be "no thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton", because______
If Barry-O loses - which is HIS to do - it will be "Bill and Hillary Clinton did not work hard enough to bring enough of her supporters on board the Unity Train." posted 06/28/2008 at 14:07:53

I agree that Obama's arugula gaffe was a result of ignorance, and it didn't seem to hurt him in the caucuses.

But "I know I'll get her voters..." is certainly an arrogant statement.

And thinking that he can change his tune on some key positions and it won't matter because where else do "progressives" have to go is the epitome of arrogance.

But he is a pol and I think it's fair to say that arrogance is endemic to the political class. posted 06/27/2008 at 21:23:06

"I know I'll get her voters..."

Arrogance.

Pure arrogance. posted 06/27/2008 at 21:22:45

How do you know that they weren't perceived as arrogant? Yes, the GOP labeled them that way, but frankly I voted for John Kerry and even I thought he was a tad arrogant. That's called perception and I didn't need the GOP or the media for that. posted 06/27/2008 at 21:18:58

"Blacks have known this 'code word' for years and years."

I don't know, but I've never heard a white person use arrogant when they meant uppity, and I've heard uppity used with regard to blacks.

Arrogant might be code for some whites, but that doesn't mean calling Obama arrogant equates with uppity every time the word is used.

I think Obama comes off as arrogant. Uppity? Not my choice of word and not my meaning.

There's a hubris about Obama, as in such things as "I know I'll get her voters..." That's not uppity but it is presumptuous and arrogant. posted 06/27/2008 at 21:16:21

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

And sometimes arrogance is just arrogance.

An African-American has moved center stage in the US and has an excellent shot of becoming the President of the US. He's shown that he's a very tough competitor (I support Hillary). Obama obviously possesses a lot of self-confidence, as does every person who chooses to run for the highest office in the land. To some, he comes off arrogant, just as to some Al Gore came off arrogant.

Please, let's not diminish the accomplishment of Barack Obama by seeing racism where none exists.

We saw enough bogus claims in that direction during the primary. posted 06/27/2008 at 21:07:40

I'm a Hillary supporter, life long Democrat, and a "maniacal" boomer, that generation that has kept the country going for the past 40 years, thank you very much.

But no way do I want Hillary on a ticket with that man.

She's going above and beyond the call as it is, in my opinion.

How either of them can bear to stand next to that man is beyond me. posted 06/26/2008 at 22:47:14

"In the U.S. there's places too, but, mostly safe states like California, New York."

Mostly safe states?

Call the Secret Service! posted 06/26/2008 at 22:43:58