naugiedoggie

Notice the one item not on the list: workable ideas that will make life in America better.

A true media-driven candidate, "all hat and no cattle." But, who needs cattle when you are that good looking of a hat?

Thanks.

mp posted 05/13/2008 at 12:11:00

Let me see if I am getting this right. Barack Obama is telling donors to stop donating money to any organization except his own campaign organization -- and this is the "new, improved" method of "ending the politics of division." Yeah, that's one way to put it, I guess. If you freeze out every organization except one, I guess that makes that one organization, well -- the only organization. I think Mr. Stoller should know enough American political history to recognize that his "new, improved" politics is just a repackaged version of Tammany Hall politics.

There are other, more effective and more democratic, ways of solidifying the Democratic party than the anointment of Barack Obama as Party Commissar, "...a new chief with massive amounts of power." But they all require opt-in from all the "special interest" groups that Obama proposes to disenfranchise. You know, like veterans, gays, believers in abortion-rights, people without healthcare; all the people on whom Obama has openly and deliberately turned his back during this campaign.

I must have just awakened. When did all these Americans become irrelevant in the Democratic Party scheme of things?

Thanks.

mp posted 05/08/2008 at 11:55:27

Yeah, Obama looks really "adult" throughing his pastor under the bus for political gain. After he pretended he didn't know what Black Liberation theology was all about -- for the past 20 years. That was really "adult," too. And let's not forget his decision to buy a $1.6 million mansion with his book money, instead of using 10% or so for charity and setting for a $1.4 million shack. Oh yeah, and how about that advert he ran in PA, falsely claiming that Clinton's health plan would force people to buy health insurance, even if they didn't want to! All hail, "adult" Obama.

Basically, in the face of heavy adverse publicity and events, Barack Obama has folded like a cheap tent in a windstorm. And as the wheels come off his vaunted campaign, people who aren't drinking the kook-aid are left wondering, what was all the fuss about?

Just another politician who started believing his own press releases, and got in over his head.

Thanks.

mp posted 05/01/2008 at 06:53:21

The only reject slip that made sense was the one that commented that gas prices most likely would not drop. However, the "extra" money likely would not go to the "oil company" but to the gas station owner. Gas stations typically operate at such low margins that they would regard an additional 18 cents a gallon as godsend.

This does ignore, however, the likelihood that gas wars would immediately break out and drive the price down, gas station operator willing or not.

If you use 20 gallons of gas a week, around here you're spending about $304 a month at 3.80 a gallon. At 3.65 a gallon, you're spending $292, a savings of $12 a month. That might not be big money to you -- most of the people on this blog are well into the middle class, with 6-figure incomes. But for anybody tied to a tight budget, no matter what your income, that is a big deal.

I think the gas-tax idea has more psychological than economic sense. When money is tight, the offer to do something immediate and tangible to help is valuable. It may be "pandering" (which is just a pejorative directed by people who don't have any ideas on how to provide immediate help, or aren't interested in doing so) ... but it is effective "pandering."

Thanks.

mp posted 04/30/2008 at 21:34:21

I'm decidedly uninterested in the material aspects of Christmas. At Christmas and Birthday, I like to give my wife a fancy present that will be a pleasant surprise. And I give my kids one (usually fancy) present at Christmas and Birthday. The tree, the baubles ... I don't care. I like going to the early services at church and I think a lot about God's grace and how little I deserve it. And that leads me to think about "the Advocate" as Edward Taylor called him in his poetry. Full circle.

My wife, OTOH, loves putting up the tree, baubles and lights, inside and out. And, she isn't bothered by the fact I don't care -- it just means we don't get into "discussions" about the best way to do it. ;-) My only assigned task is to drag the tree out afterwards and pitch it off the bluff into the ravine behind our house. Suits me.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/30/2008 at 19:17:54

The "failure of leadership" is not only at the top of the pyramid. Across the country, local and state organizations have looked to handouts from the Federal Gov't, relied on Federal courts and shoveled money with both hands to DC lobby groups like NARAL.

The result has been unmitigated policy failure, from abortion rights to voting rights. Uncle Sam has no answers that could trump the kind of local organizing done by the wackos. They do not win the battles because they have the right ideas. They win the battles because they commit, organize and fight.

Meanwhile, every leftwing group declares it "won't compromise its principles" and spends more time shooting at other leftists than at the real enemy.

QED.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/29/2008 at 13:01:10

There's nothing "radical" or "new" about the Obama political position. He's a middle-of-the-road DLC Democrat on every public policy position he has taken, and to the right of Clinton in most cases. I challenge you or any other Obama-bot to describe one of his positions that does not fall into this category.

Yes, he has brought a lot of weak-sister wannabees into the Democratic column for a one-off vote for himself. These are largely people who do nothing for their country now, and of whom there is no evidence whatever that they will ever do anything for their country -- beyond voting for Barack Obama in one election. If you can consider that "doing something for your country."

The popular expression used to be "Where's the beef?" Where, indeed. The reason we have primary season is so that the candidates can make their cases. If Obama can't step up to the bar now and make his case, he certainly is not going to be able to step up in the Fall election season.

Clinton will win in the Fall. Will Obama? Prove it.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/25/2008 at 07:12:03

News flash: In the United States, healthcare is rationed by the ability to pay. Can't pay? Suffer, or die. Literally.

As we just saw recently, when a teenaged girl died because her parents' insurance company would not pay for an organ transplant and hospitals will not do $100,000+ procedures without insurance payment.

There is plenty of evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, to demonstrate that healthcare in Canada is far superior to care in the United States -- lower infant mortality, lower hospital mortality, longer life spans, lower workplace absenteeism due to illness.

Read, learn, then write.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/24/2008 at 13:06:59

Actually, I have compared the Clinton plan to the Obama plan, and therefore, I can reply that you're talking nonsense. Obama will leave many millions of Americans without any option to obtain coverage and he will specifically rule out any options that would make coverage universal, such as "extending Medicare" or implementing mandates. Anybody who wants to know the truth about these plans can search on http://www.healthbeat.org to find out the facts.

"Private insurers compete by avoiding high-risk individuals, limiting services for those they do cover, and, whenever possible, shifting costs to other payers or to patients in the form of high deductibles and co-payments. We have the only health system in the world based on avoiding sick people." -- Dr. Marcia Angell, senior lecturer on social medicine at the Harvard Medical School and a former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (quoted on Healthbeat)

Obama plans to leave that system in place, specifically allowing the above-described cost shifting to continue. You're selling a one-legged stool. I'm not buying.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/24/2008 at 12:58:32

Actually, I think Schumer is right. There's many a slip between cup and lip. As has been pointed out in other contexts, many citizens rebel against their own high heathcare costs but that does not translate into a rebellion against the lack of access for the 47 million or so that have no care at all. They are not the same issue.

That is a problem. I am in the process of shopping for personal healthcare insurance right now, having left the corporate world to become part of an independent consultancy. The cheapest useful packages (dental, medical, eye & prescription) run $450 to $650 PER MONTH. To get down into the $300 range, you have to accept huge deductibles, in the $1500 - $5000 range -- basically useless except for major crises. So I'm looking at that expense problem directly. That is not the problem for the individuals who just can't pay that kind of money. And they are the ones whose issues are being most directly addressed by the candidates.

Sirota is right -- we need a movement for change across the board. I don't see any evidence that such action is even bubbling below the surface.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/24/2008 at 12:45:52

You have to be joking. Why don't you actually go look at Obama's "health plan"? It holds more air than a sponge cake.

In particular, Obama has specifically ruled out both mandated care and any Federal health plan ("extending Medicare") -- both of which are key to the Clinton plan. Obama will deny health care "reform" to somewhere around 20 million citizens.

You can bet your patootie that the medical and insurance industries would far prefer the Obama plan to the Clinton plan, since he has pledged to NOT use the Federal gov't power to "force" coverage of all Americans.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/24/2008 at 12:33:48

Perhaps, they believe in something called "democracy." You know, a method of organization and government in which the people who make up the organization actually have a say in how it works? If you really perfer a more "top down" approach, in which the party leaders determine the candidate, all I can say is -- you're in the wrong party.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/23/2008 at 11:29:20

Great presentation of numbers. Thanks for doing the research and presenting it in a usable format. Good for hammering the republican acquaintances.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/21/2008 at 13:58:02

I am an American first and a citizen of my state second. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. That feeling of "I don't care about anybody on the other side of the state border" is what has fueled all the regional strife in this nation since it was created. It led to the Civil War. It led to Jim Crow. It has made Mississippi the poorest state in the nation, poorer than some third world countries.

What we, as a nation and society, need is more people to put America first and their own regional hobby horses second. I don't know if it can be done. As you say, you don't care about poor people in Mississippi, it's not your state. There are a lot of people who share that feeling. You should reflect on the fact that Mississippians are citizens of your country and have the same rights as you. You know, the "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Thanks.

mp posted 04/21/2008 at 13:55:51

The FAS is a major thorn in the side of this admin and its supporters. Go see http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy, its web version of the Secrecy News email newsletter it publishes. They are practically a cottage industry of FOIA requests.

Anytime they get something hot, they immediately burp out pdf copies so that when the gov't retracts it, there already are copies of it all over the net.

Here is a piece of the bio blurb on the newsletter editor, Steven Aftergood:

"""
Steven Aftergood is a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists. He directs the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, which works to reduce the scope of government secrecy and to promote reform of official secrecy practices.

He writes Secrecy News, an email newsletter (and blog) which reports on new developments in secrecy policy for more than 10,000 subscribers in media, government and among the general public.

In 1997, Mr. Aftergood was the plaintiff in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency which led to the declassification and publication of the total intelligence budget ($26.6 billion in 1997) for the first time in fifty years. In 2006, he won a FOIA lawsuit against the National Reconnaissance Office for release of unclassified budget records.
"""

Good stuff. I've been getting the email newsletter for years.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/21/2008 at 13:46:24

At some point, Rhodes started believing her own press releases. This is usually fatal. She can do a decent radio show, but she is far from brilliant. She might have made a solid niche for herself by concentrating on an area of the political spectrum in which she had some expertise -- say, the military. Thom Hartmann is a good example of this type of host. The last time I listened to her (some time ago, now), her specialty seemed to be tinfoil beanie conspiracy theories. My reaction to that kind of stuff is, "Get over it." It quickly becomes boring.

I don't see how anyone can claim that calling a Presidential candidate a whore does not constitute an ad hominem attack. That is as bizarre a redefinition of ad hominem as the original attack was inexcusable. Her refusal to apologize was a calculated move -- she no doubt had other offers already lined up and figured on manipulating the controversy for free advertising -- claiming the "high ground" of principle without actually putting her career or income in any danger. Nicely done.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/15/2008 at 08:32:15

The problem is the ripple effect. As a business frequent traveller, I have to rely on airlines to get me places too far to drive or take the train. I rely on the airlines because I'm a consultant, but my clients rely on them indirectly because they need me on site. There is a point of no return, beyond which I will not be able to recoup the expense of flying, the services go uncommitted and I lose work, the sofware company that makes the product I service loses sales, the clients lose the necessary functionality ... etc etc.

I work a lot more from home now than I did a few years ago, thanks to technological advances, but unless/until there are major structural changes in the U.S. economy (like, we all return to hunter/gather economics), affordable business air travel is going to be required.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/11/2008 at 22:59:47

Everyone who does a lot of flying has horror stories. I have plenty, too.

I don't believe for one minute that the blowup at American is going to result in some kind of cathartic blurting of the crap out of the industry. That is because it doesn't address the fact that the business is a cash cow for a few investors and executives at the top of the pile. The economics of the airline industry is twisted all out of shape by government subsidies and porkbarrel regulations. AA, for example, got special treatment from DFW, allowing it to put a knee in the back of low-priced competitors who wanted to fly in there.

You can get a cheaper ticket by flying thousands of miles extra ... what???

Airline industry has been a boom-and-bust, goldrush industry for decades. We're going into another bust cycle now. As one who flies a dozen or more round trips a year, I find flying a bust, from start to finish. (And here I am, in a hotel outside EWR, booked to fly out tomorrow ... on vacation! Arggh! Is there no escape?)

Thanks.

mp posted 04/11/2008 at 22:49:30

Eh. I haven't listened to her in quite a while. I quit listening after she started going around the bend with tinfoil beanie conspiracy theories. She could be funny, but she was excessively contemptuous of anyone who didn't fall into line with her conspiracy-of-the-week. And she didn't know how to change the subject, when a topic got stale.

Calling Clinton names is just meaningless bloviating. How is she any different from Lard Rushball? I don't have time for that ear-junk. It's not funny and it's not any reason to listen to a talk show. The best talk shows are about ideas ... Randi hasn't had a new one since she stopped by the grassy knoll on her way to Area 51.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/10/2008 at 14:20:09

A big problem for corp offices is that many office workers are internet beachcombers ... they pick up all kinds of trash and bring it home -- to the corp network -- while out surfing. Since I got my first "internets" account in 1994, the only times I have picked up a virus of any kind has been while plugged into a corporate network. And even with modern enterprise AV software, it can be extremely difficult to expunge one of these parasites, once loose in a network with hundreds or even thousands of computers.

Nonetheless, I'm on the side of more freedom rather than less. I think the impact on morale of being regarded as untrustworthy is greater than the relative IT benefits of surf restrictions. While I was in the cube farm, our corporate policy was simple: we hired you as adults, we expect you to act as adults. It seems to work.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/09/2008 at 22:24:08

Paying taxes is part of living in a society. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Now, some people will tell you that if you don't like it, you can always leave. Yes, you can. You can go up into the wilderness in Idaho and eat roots and berries and poke salmon out of the rivers with a pointed stick.

Tax complainers fall into two categories. First, those who don't give a damn about anyone else and will take whatever society doesn't bolt down. Freeloaders of the worst sort ... they complain about not being allowed to have all the benefits of organized society without having to pay for them.

Second, bad money managers. They dork up their personal finances, don't have enough money to pay their bills, and complain about taxes because they see that tax money as the ticket to paying the bills they should not have run up in the first place. In fact, they got into that position not because they didn't have enough money, but because they failed to live within their means. If they paid NO taxes, they'd just up the spending level until all that was gone.

A pox on both. Live within your means, and pay what you owe. Life is better that way, for all of us. "Happiness is not a destination, but a daily way of travel."

Thanks.

mp posted 04/09/2008 at 14:49:42

Uh, because neither of them are running the campaigns. They hired "campaign managers." Whee.

Now, here's my question. How come you couldn't figure this out on your own?

Thanks.

mp posted 04/07/2008 at 21:35:59

For crying out loud. Here he is back with that silly meme again.

Now, I'm certain that Creamer is just a front man for the Obama campaign, and it doesn't even matter to him if this story is true, sensible or even likely. He just has to push the meme, and all the bobblyhead Obama-bots will spread it around. But it would be just peachy if just occasionally, some Obama-bot or another would bobble his head hard enough to knock loose some sense, wake up from the kook-aid and say, "Wait a minute. He's saying that we knew George Bush would be a great President because he did such a great job of managing his campaigns. That can't be right!"

No, it can't be right. In fact, candidates at that level don't manage their own campaigns -- doh! That is why they hire "campaign managers." Concept! Bad ones (or sometimes, just the wrong one) can F up a campaign totally.

There's nothing "brilliant" about Obama's campaign, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. As recent weeks have shown, his feet are made of clay. And, so too those of his campaigners.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/07/2008 at 21:33:41

No, they are Obama supporters. Their idea of a deep thought is examining the overhead light through the bottom of their beer glass. And, the challenge is to do it without falling over backwards.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/07/2008 at 14:09:43

Remember, Obama-bots, this is the guy you have sworn to support if Clinton "steals" (read: "wins") the nomination.

Just Saturday night, as we were driving to a restaurant for supper, an Obama-bot was on a Sirius left talk show, explaining how she would rather see McCain as President than Clinton. I've seen enough of their lack of commitment to what is best for America to believe that, in fact, a majority of Obama supporters will sit out the election, too.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/07/2008 at 14:05:18

Although I agree that the notion of "weightism" is somewhat ludicrous, it's clear that the author of this piece himself is contemptuous of overweight people. He's just using this report as an opportunity to tee off on a group he doesn't like. That is too bad because it destroys his credibility as a messenger of ideas.

I know from experience how difficult it is to get weight off and keep it off and I'm not obese. I detest these "just do it" mantras. They're generally written by smug gym-rats who think the whole world ought to be just like them and anybody who isn't at home in a locker room is a worthless putz.

My wife and I teach our kids good food habits and control what they eat as much as practical. But all those people who haven't had that benefit deserve more respect than accorded by this author, or a lot of people in the comment column. And it simply is fact that overweight people are discriminated against in the real world, in real ways such as hiring and promotion. Why you people would think that it is justifiable to deny someone an earned promotion because that individual is overweight -- beats me.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/07/2008 at 10:22:02

What ought to be really scary is that for most people, the anecdote has the ring of truth. Such is the state of our healthcare system.

Don't worry, though. Obama will make sure that you don't "have to have" medical insurance.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/05/2008 at 16:07:30

Wow. Obama refuses all interviews with gay newspapers, and you've turned that into a positive because it "proves" that he is "really pro-gay." I see a promising career for you in marketing. Any job that requires honest assessment and truthful reporting ... not so promising.

How about: he's a two-faced professional politician who has calculated that he doesn't need the votes of the gay community, but he does need the votes of the gay-haters. The former group is much smaller than the later.

Simple political math. Works for me.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/05/2008 at 15:55:25

I know why the uneducated pseudo-progressives are so pro-Obama. He looks good in an expensive suit, a suit costing many times more than they'll ever be able to afford.

I'm pro-Clinton because I looked at her positions on issues, especially healthcare, and compared her positions to those of Obama. I found that in almost every case, she is more to the progressive side, had done more thinking and had actual PLANS for solving problems. In almost every case, Obama is the the right of Clinton, and in some cases comes down firmly to the right of the whole party (he supports use of private military contractors like Blackwater, for example).

I know, I know. You don't want to talk no stinking issues -- they're boring. Have another sip of kook-aid.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/05/2008 at 15:17:47

It's not a shelter. It's a method of organizing charitable giving in a manner that suits the family.

Here is a useful link.
http://www.cof.org/learn/content.cfm?itemnumber=828&navItemNumber=2273

If that link doesn't work, go to the Council on Foundations web site and look up family foundations.

Note that according to the Council on Foundations, family foundations account for half of all foundations in the US and 41% of charitable giving by foundations. There's nothing sneaky or untoward about the Clintons' choice of this method of organizing their giving.

These types of organizations are monitored by the IRS. They aren't known for playing favorites, in case you haven't noticed.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/05/2008 at 09:58:38

There's always something to complain about, isn't there? First it was because they didn't release the returns. Then they release 6 years of returns and it's -- "oh well, they didn't release 7." If they had released 2007, it would have been "Oh well, they didn't release this year's return." Or, "what about 1982? They didn't release the return for 1982!"

What questions that "need to be answered" are answered by her 2007 tax returns? Lord love a duck, what sensible person gives a hoot what her 2007 tax returns look like? None that I've met. No, sensible people want to know what are her positions on important issues like Iraq, healthcare, the economy. Surprise, n-o-n-e of those issues are discussed on her tax returns. Let's face it, the whole tax-return business is a gimmick to distract from the core issues that Obama supporters never want to discuss.

The bummer for Clinton haters is that their tax returns show unambiguously that they were model citizens: they paid what they owed, didn't hide huge sums in tax shelters (paid 50% above average taxes for their bracket), and donated generously to charity (50% more than the sanctimonious Obamas donated). Of course, my wife and I donate substantially more than the Obamas, on one-third the income. A lot of my friends who work hourly-wage jobs donate a higher percentage of income than those two. So, not hard to beat that pair of sybarites.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/05/2008 at 09:38:25

zing. Time to get out the tinfoil beanie.

Sometimes, things just are the way they seem to be. A guy confessing to a crime he committed and then immediately doing a 180 is common as dirt. You can't make anything out of that reversal except regret at talking too much.

Somebody needs to provide some substantiated evidence that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Oh wait ... wrong conspiracy. My bad.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/04/2008 at 11:50:58

So this is "change you can believe in": the daughter is "fair game" for meanspirited personal attacks about shameful behavior of her father TEN YEARS AGO. And what is the point of this personal attack? To make the candidate whose mantra is "change you can believe it" look better?

I wish someone would explain to me how your contemptible personal attacks on the daughter who loves and believes in her mother are supposed to inspire me to regard your "change you can believe in" motto as anything other than a despicable, phony front for the same old attack politics of the Republican Party.

I'm waiting.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/01/2008 at 06:58:22

That he is for universal healthcare, when in fact, his plan will barely cut the uninsured by 50%.

That he wants to get us out of Iraq, but plans to keep fighting the war with private security companies like Blackwater.

That he is a true Christian, when buying a $1.6 million mansion meant more to him than meeting his obligations as a Christian.

That the Clinton campaign played "the race card," when, in fact, it was his own campaign that played the race card first and often.

That he was "not there" and disavowed Reverend Wright's "inflammatory" statements from the pulpit.

The fact that you don't know about any of these bloopers is not surprising. Membership in the Obama camp is predicated on ignoring issues. Once you start looking at issues and his position on issues, you realize that he is just another DLC centercrat -- only one whose public plans will do even less than Clinton's to solve our problems.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/01/2008 at 06:50:46

Yes, it is SO much more important that we question Clinton's DAUGHTER about something that her father did TEN YEARS ago than it is to ask questions about HEALTHCARE, IRAQ, the FINANCIAL MELTDOWN and what her mother might be planning to do about those issues when she gets to the White House as President.

If anyone ever has any doubt about the vacuous mindlessness of the Obama supporter, send them to Huffington Post to read the comments by Obama-bots. "Issues? What issues? We don't want no stinking issues!"

Thanks.

mp posted 03/31/2008 at 15:55:13

A classic example of setting up a straw man in order to knock him down. None of these supposed "arguments," if they really exist anywhere in HuffPost comments (I haven't seen them & I read quite a bit of it), have anything to do with the reality of the competition, which is on ISSUES.

Like almost all Obama-bots, and certainly all bots posting in the comments section, "Chip" is all about avoiding any discussion of issues. Yes, that is because Obama's positions on issues suck in almost every case when compared to Clinton's positions. He comes down to the right of the putative "centrist" candidate on healthcare, Iraq, finance, relations with Cuba. His issue whitepapers are full of air -- as someone once said, "hope is not a plan." A statement like "work to see that all children are vaccinated" is not a plan to get those vaccinations accomplished.

If you wanted to sort out the Clinton supporters from the Obama supporters, one way to do it would be to look at who wants to talk about issues, and who wants to talk about ... speeches. Who speaks in favor of their candidate and who talks trash about the other candidate? Pretty simple. Clinton supporter: issues. Obama supporter: air pollution.

So, here is my challenge, "Chip": rewrite this silly column and pick the top ten issue-related "myths" about Obama's positions and tell us why you think his positions are more progressive than Clinton's positions.

Thanks.

mp posted 04/03/2008 at 23:28:54

Is there any sign that Obama-bots will support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination? NO, in fact, just the opposite is true. They have repeatedly, publicly declared that under no circumstances will they vote for Clinton. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. That's pretty decisive. So, Obama-bots would rather see McCain in the White House than Clinton. They'll either vote for him or they won't vote, thereby throwing the election to him.

Hmm ... or are they all lying?

Thanks.

mp posted 03/31/2008 at 09:34:07

On the grounds that Obama is the weakest of the candidates on issues. He is basically a weathervane -- "whichever way the wind blows, that's alright with me." He has no legislative record to run on and no positions that he hasn't backtracked on ("I'm against healthcare mandates unless I'm for them"; "I'm against the war in Iraq but I'm for fighting it with private security companies"). He's an ideological zero, running to the right of Clinton on every major issue.

If it were possible for you to get your wish, and force Clinton to "retire" from the campaign, it would prove that Obama is incapable of beating her in a standup fight. If he can't win the nomination outright, why would anyone think he was the best candidate in the election campaign in the Fall? The voters outside the Democratic Party corridors are going to be saying, "Hell, he couldn't even win the nomination, they had to use backroom politics to force out the other candidates in order to give it to him."

So much for the candidate for "change you can believe in."

Thanks.

mp posted 03/31/2008 at 09:25:49

"progressives who are backing Barack Obama have chosen to do so in order to exert pressure on him to represent their values".

I'm sorry, what? Progressives will vote for Barry Obama no matter what ... this "exerts pressure" exactly how?

In politics, "exerting pressure" means sending the message, "If you want my vote, you have to do this, that and the other thing." I don't really believe the editors of The Nation lack this basic understanding. I can't say what their true reasons for supporting Obama might have been, but since they've already committed to supporting Obama, no matter what his positions are, "exerting pressure" is obviously false.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/27/2008 at 06:57:41

Two wrong assumptions subsume this article. (1) Clinton's support is primarily among the unwashed masses, politely referred to as "blue-collar" or "working class" Americans. (2) The members of this group are a bunch of ignorant dumbasses that need to be reprogrammed.

Actually, Clinton's support is primarily among long-time Democrats and participants in the party process, who have put in the time and effort to advance the Party and its agenda. This group cuts across demographic lines. Support for Obama is primarily among the alienated and disaffected, who have not participated in the electoral process and are completely uninterested in participating in it. They'll vote for Obama and then disappear.

I have no interest in joining the Obama "team" -- a team composed largely of people who repudiate the Democratic Party as the carrier of progressive ideas; spew misogyny and contempt for Clinton supporters and, insofar as they think at all about the Democratic Party, simply wish to purge it of all who don't think like them. Obama as a candidate will do less to advance progressive causes (like universal healthcare, in which he does not even believe) than will Clinton.

No, Mr. Ellis, it is not about speaking past the candidate to the supporters. The Obama-bots have been doing that for him for months -- giving a sickening display of bad thinking and bad manners. It is about wrong positions on the issues. If Senator Obama wants my support, he needs to move to the left.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/27/2008 at 10:17:52

I got a "sense of Ms. Power's true character" when she called Hillary Clinton a monster.

Granted, considering the amount of misogynistic hatemongering that spews forth from the Obama team and its supporters, it was a fairly mild comment. Nonetheless, she said it, she believes it and that says as much about her "true character" as one needs.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 13:30:30

It is not Obama's "fault" but it is indicative of the kind of person who styles as an Obama supporter. It ought to make one ask, "What kind of a candidate is Obama, if his followers are misogynistic, hate-spewing jerks?"

Obama-bots want to style as supporters of the "politics of change," while churning out mile after mile of the same old hatemongering and bile that are traditional among Republicans and bigoted demagogues.

Who are these people and who invited them to my party?

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 12:36:40

And the reason you're supportive of bullying the daughter about her parents' private lives is?

Well, the reason is that there are no depths below which Obama supporters will not stoop in order to slime their perceived enemy.

You're about as "feminist" as Rush Limpballs, in whose path you are now walking. Honestly, since you claim to be representative of the candidate of "change," and your "change" consists of ad hominem attack politics against the families of candidates you don't like, there is zero chance that any decent person is going to want to join your campaign.

Congratulations on another contribution to the legacy of smear politics.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 07:56:43

If it was a legitimate question, she gave a legitimate answer.

What is wrong with you people? Is there no limit to the bullying, meanspirited attack politics that you will deploy to get your candidate into the nomination? What's next? You gonna shoot their dog?

Anybody who thinks about Obama as a candidate is going to look at you and back off. NO decent person wants to associate with this kind of rabble. Attacking the kid to get at the parents is just disgusting.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 06:37:28

Nice way to reprise Lard Limpballs. I'm really amazed, actually, that anyone would consider making derogatory remarks about someone's "looks" as either acceptable or on point. You managed to reveal yourself "on the inside" as a meanspirited misogynist. You managed to repudiate every known progressive principle in two sentences.

You must be an Obama supporter. Tell me again about how you're going to "change" politics in America?

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 06:28:00

How lame. My wife and I give a higher percentage of our income to charity, on substantially less income. And that is just tax-deductible, which requires documentation. We donate out-of-pocket to numerous charity events, bazaars, fund-raising events of all kinds.

Every year, 10% of our tax refund goes to charity. Whenever we get a "windfall," such as from the sale of stock, 10% goes to charity.

Yet, here are the Obamas: they financed their $1.6 million mansion, but they "couldn't afford" to donate more than 6% of their income to charity. What part of "hypocrite" don't you understand?

Thanks.

mp posted 03/26/2008 at 10:28:31

Would you be happy if all the supporters of Hillary Clinton stayed home on election day? Do you think Barack Obama would be elected President if that should happen? posted 03/24/2008 at 16:58:03

Yeah, Andrea Mitchell, a known flack for GW Bush and flogger of the "liberation of Iraq" meme ... what a fine resource to be quoting here. Oh yeah, she thinks "Scooter" LIbby committed no crime, either. posted 03/24/2008 at 16:53:08

It's a fallacy that manual labor contributes significantly to overall health. Yes, you can burn off calories and that is not a bad thing. But you don't get organized and systematic muscle activity, the way you do with athletics or workouts at the gym. Most people who do manual labor for a significant portion of their lives end up with one or more of a variety of repetitive task injuries, such as back strains, neck and shoulder strains, hamstring or other leg injuries, carpal tunnel and so forth. I know from personal experience. I am just this week doing penance ... again ... for a lower-back strain acquired during my years as a warehouseman.

What usually happens is that your activity is restricted to the particulars of your job -- lumping out a truck means standing in one spot for hours, picking up boxes making a half-turn at the waist, placing the box on a pallet, (sometimes bending down, which puts you most at risk for back injury), then repeat ad nauseam and usually under orders to get it done as soon as possible. Landscaping means lifting and bending under load, and so forth.

These days, I get my exercise at the gym. I stay in shape and minimize the re-aggravation of old injuries.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/25/2008 at 17:02:40

Are you volunteering? I do get a bit annoyed by being lectured by apartment termites and suburbanites with postage-stamp lawns and 2 12 -foot "trees" in their 1/10th acre lot.

I wouldn't mind raking leaves, either, if I could do it in an hour or two.

Like a lot of other "time savers," something like a leaf blower may worth what you are willing to give up for them. Like 32-40 man-hours of raking, accompanied by days of lower back pain afterward. I have too many things I *like* to do and not enough time in which to do them. There's nothing particularly romantic about 40-50 maples and plane trees dropping their leaves in your yard, year after year. They do look wonderful during the summer, though.

Oh yeah, and next year, for sure, I am buying a snow blower!

http://www.mistysplace.org/images/winter_2007.png

Thanks.

mp posted 03/25/2008 at 16:37:16

Totally. I have about 1/3 acre of maples on my property, all fully-grown and generating a huge carpet of leaves every fall. Our first year, my wife and I raked ... and raked ... and raked. The next year, I bought a blower. 210 MPH! That puppy will move 2-inch diameter chunks of tree branch. Even with the blower, it's about 2 full days of work to move all those leaves off the lawn. (I live on the edge of a ridge, so I just blow them off the bluff. Otherwise, I'd have to rent a drop box to get rid of them.) But at least it's just one of us doing the work. And my back doesn't need medical attention afterward.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/25/2008 at 15:26:30

Unfortunately, the primary source of hatemongering, misogyny and other such contemptible behavior in the leftish blogosphere has been from Obama supporters. You can no more get an Obama-bot to discuss issues than you can get McCain off his Viagra. If I thought they were actually members of the Democratic Party, I'd be ashamed to admit membership myself.

If Obama is the Democratic Party candidate for President, I will vote for him. That is as much as he will get from me. No money, no lawn signs, no phone banking -- none of the stuff I contributed to Kerry in 2004.

You Obama-bots are so proud of yourselves for having done everything in your power to alienate as many people as possible from your candidate. Instead of working to draw people into the party, you actively campaigned to drive out as many as possible. Instead of highlighting your candidate's positions, you spent all your time serving up ad hominem attacks against the opposing candidates. You glorified and praised yourselves, while spewing contempt on everyone else.

You seem to think that you don't need the rest of America to win this election. You're wrong about that. And you've set a high barrier to your own candidate, who will have to work twice as hard, to undo the damage your selfish egotism has inflicted on his campaign.

Not that I think you're listening. One of your other endearing qualities is that your ears are sewn shut. The only sound echoing in the empty chambers of your brainpans is the sound of your own voices. You even manage to drown out the voice of your own candidate.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/22/2008 at 12:32:24

And the origin of this fantasy is? 1-800-PSYCHICS?

It seems equally, or perhaps more, likely that he doesn't see any reason to waste his time on either one of these two candidates -- both of whom are well to the right of his political positions.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/22/2008 at 19:35:33

"No brainer" is right. Hillary Clinton's pedigree of anti-poverty combat leaves Barrie in the dust.

This whole line of thought makes no sense. Barrie fell on his face, and somehow John Edwards is supposed to rush in and save him? If Obama can't save his candidacy, what kind of a President is he going to be? It would seem that the whole point of COMPETING for the nomination is that the "best" candidate wins. You Obama-bots are all over this idea when trash-talking Hillary Clinton. But, it seems you don't want to apply the same set of rules to your own candidate.

Let Obama get his own fat out of the fire. He put it in there.

Thanks.

mp posted 03/22/2008 at 19:07:57

This is the kind of cowardly anti-Americanism that makes me want to puke. I'm willing to defend my family -- are you willing to defend yours? If you think that the fight in Iraq is about "defending our country," why aren't you over there? You should be willing to spend your entire adult life fighting there, if you truly believe that it is a fight to "defend America." It appears that your love of America is tempered by personal convenience.

You defend liberty by embracing it. You refuse to back down when challenged to defend it. Secret police tactics, such as those deployed under the "Patriot" Act, are the refuge of cowards who would rather give the central government all power over their lives, in exchange for the (false) promise of protection. I want my phones, my home, my car and my person free of secret, warrantless searches. I want my lawyer, a speedy trial under constitutional guidelines when arrested, and the unhampered ability to see the evidence against me and question the witnesses against me. I want transparent government.

I don't run to the central government, whining "Save me! Save me!" when there's a perceived danger. I don't fall to my knees and hold up my liberties, saying "Here, take these! I don't want them if it means I have to fight for them. I don't want them if it means I might be in danger." That's why I'm a Liberal.

In America, conservative == surrender monkey. That is why conservativism is getting kicked to the curb in America. Real Americans don't want to live on their knees. In the spiritual sense, we're all from New Hampshire: "Live free or die."

Thanks.

mp posted 03/22/2008 at 08:03:12