rgraves

speaking of narcissism... posted 04/27/2008 at 08:39:40

The only important thing you said in that entire piece was that Fowler's account was "partial but truthful". With all due respect, partial may be truthful, but it can also be misleading, and that's what happened here. Reporting something that was "partial" and did not convey the context or intent of the speaker is dishonest journalism. It's quite clear that you're more concerned with promoting yourself and your website than with accurate reporting. You should be ashamed. posted 04/14/2008 at 17:35:36

The stated purpose of Daily Kos is to elect progressives. Once it became a 2 person race and Kos made the determination to back Obama...a perfectly reasonable determination, whether you agree with it or not...his focus turned to getting Obama nominated. The criticism of Clinton on Kos has been over the top in its vitriol, but for the most part, the Clinton campaign has deserved the criticism, if not its tone. Clinton's conduct in the campaign, including her efforts at undermining Obama vis-a-vis McCain have, in the minds of many democrats, made the decision to support Obama virtually absolute. There is no more weighing of the positives and negatives of the candidates...Clinton simply made it impossible for many democrats to support her in the primary. While it's a fair criticism that Kos hasn't been pushing Obama on policy issues, the fact is that there would be more than enough time to push Obama left after he wins the nomination. Right now, for many Democrats, the time for deciding which candidate to support is long past and we want to get to the general. So, all in all, I agree about the criticism of the tone, but otherwise think you should recognize that there comes a point when it's ok to choose which candidate to support and work towards getting them elected. posted 04/09/2008 at 11:51:51

Professor Keyssar, I'm truly disappointed in you...your post is premised on the following..."According to news reports...". Now how in the world can we take your post seriously when it's premised on such a flimsy basis. We all know that "news reports" could be anything at all...and we also know that our vaunted media has lost so much credibility in general and particularly with respect to the election, that relying on "news reports" negates everything that follows. If I was grading your post it would definately deserve a failing grade. And one more point...why wasn't Clinton complaining about disenfranchising voters before the Florida and Michigan primaries? In fact, she was complicit in the establishment of the rules that led us here. Add to that her blatantly false statements about her decision to leave her name on the Michigan ballot in violation of her commitment that she would not "participate" in the Michigan primary and she ends up with zero credibility on the issue. Don't let yourself be dragged down in support of her dishonesty! posted 03/24/2008 at 15:56:46

Jane, you seem to be conflating an Endorsement with a commitment to vote as a superdelegate. Do you think that because he expressed an opinion that superdelegates have too much influence that he shouldn't endorse a candidate? posted 03/21/2008 at 19:31:03