stop7997

Leno used to be a very edgy comedian before he took over the Tonight Show. I always looked forward to his guest appearances whenever he went on the old Letterman show -- he always killed! I would love to see him have a show on HBO or Showtime where he would have the opportunity to really cut loose. I don't mean work "blue" (I don't think he does that), but to show his real personality. posted 05/13/2008 at 17:30:14

Actually, the reality of it is that racists like yourself will not vote for a Black President. Stop projecting your irrational hatred on the rest of the nation. posted 05/10/2008 at 00:09:01

I don't want him banned. I want the world to see what a John McCain supporter sounds like. posted 05/10/2008 at 00:05:03

I'm a Southern White man proudly voting for Obama! posted 05/09/2008 at 23:57:55

This message brought to you by the KKK. posted 05/09/2008 at 23:55:35

So you're voting against Obama because he's black? posted 05/09/2008 at 23:53:50

Then say "goodbye" to Roe v. Wade. posted 05/09/2008 at 23:51:08

If you fail to support Obama because of some anti-Clinton comment posted by an anonymous blogger, then I would have to question whether you have the emotional maturity to even vote in a presidential election. posted 05/07/2008 at 22:35:37

The bulk of Obama's donations is from voters, while Hillary's are mostly corporate. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:56:31

"The Clintons"? LOL! I don't think that anyone could seriously argue that Hillary had anything to do with Bill's wins; so for the time being, let's leave Bubba out of it and focus on Hillary.

Hillary's first Senate win was against Rick Lazio, a weak and smarmy candidate who was a last-minute replacement for a very popular (at the time) Rudy Giuliani (who left the race due to illness). In Hillary's next race, she received token opposition at best. So that's two tepid wins in a solidly Democratic state.

Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if you're at all objective, you have to admit that the right-wing hates Hillary, and that hatred has been festering for nearly 20 years now. Plus, her negatives among independents, and even many Democrats, are very high. Even if Democratic voters come together and support Hillary, she will still have to get over those high negatives.

I would argue that, not only can she not surmount the negatives, but that her presence in the race would serve to galvanize Republicans who otherwise, because of George Bush"s dismal job performance and their lack of enthusiasm for John McCain, would turn out in record numbers to defeat Hillary Clinton. And their record turnout will serve to further hurt any inroads that Democrats might make in the House and Senate. Obama, on the other hand, has been energizing young and even independent voters to get involved in record numbers. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:46:59

Because she has gone negative and appealed to racist voters, of which there are plenty in Pennsylvania and Indiana. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:52:45

A "presidential candidate" didn't use the word, a comedian did. Stop inflating the issue. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:50:35

Like Rush Limbaugh, Joe is only cheerleading Hillary because he knows she'll lose in the general. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:28:15

He abbreviated the joke on "Morning Joe", because he was trying to make a point about the audience reaction to the joke. There is a YouTube video where Penn describes the incident more fully: in the original joke, he said that Hillary Clinton was making the claim that Obama was winning because it was Black History Month, and that it wasn't fair to her because there is no "white bitch month". I don't think she ever made that claim, but it was part of the joke. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:21:05

But I don't respect Hillary. She hasn't earned my respect. In fact, in this election, she has earned my disdain by proving that HILLARY is more important than the Democratic party or the country. It was very clear in the last debate that she was prepared for the Ayers question. While she was NEVER asked about Ayers directly (look at the tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnoXZWRjgE), she gleefully added fuel to the fire after Obama had answered Stephanopoulos's question. Your zeal to elect a woman president, ANY woman, regardless of credentials or qualifications, is going to end up putting John McCain in the White House. Then, after Roe V. Wade is overturned, I'm sure you'll blame everyone else. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:37:30

Give me a woman candidate who has credentials, and I'll gladly vote -- and campaign -- for her. I'd vote for Barbara Boxer, or any number of other distinguished women, in a heartbeat. Hillary Clinton has been a cipher in the Senate, distinguished only by her anti-war rhetoric and pro-war votes. She wouldn't even be a candidate if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton. On foreign policy matters, she's clearly in the Neocon camp. Let's be honest: the ONLY reason you support her is that she is a woman. The irony is that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, then McCain will be our next president and bye-bye Roe V. Wade, all because you selfishly insist on having a woman, ANY woman, as President. If Obama wins the Dem nomination, maybe you'll get the opportunity to vote for Condoleezza Rice as VP on the Republican ticket. posted 05/06/2008 at 12:24:30

So if Stephen Colbert is a devout Catholic, that makes him a Republican? This is news for John Kerry, not to mention the entire Kennedy family. Clearly you're getting your talking points from FOX News. posted 05/05/2008 at 02:46:30

Farewell Roe v Wade.
If Hillary gets the nomination, kiss your precious abortion rights goodbye because she CANNOT win the general election. She is too despised by too much of the population. She may destroy Barack Obama's chances, but she will lose the election. She cannot attract independent and crossover voters as Obama has shown he can. Not only that, Clinton's nomination will energize the conservative base to get-out-the-vote in record numbers, cutting into any possible gains the Dems might make in the House and Senate. The next president will probably appoint between 3 and 5 Supreme Court justices. If Hillary gets the nomination, the next president will be John McCain.
"Feminists" who support Hillary simply for the fact that she is a woman AND FOR NO OTHER REASON refuse to recognize the fact that SHE CANNOT WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Her nomination would set back women's rights back 40 years. posted 05/01/2008 at 01:06:15

Actually, he's not a bad-looking guy, he just acts like a spaz. Chill, dude. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:52:03

I could host a fundraiser for Obama, and I might even persuade him to show up. But that doesn't make us "friends". And a year from now, he probably wouldn't even remember my name. Obama and Ayers, both living in Chicago, both being Democrats, and both being politically active are bound to run in the same circles and serve on the same boards. The really vile thing is that Hillary, being a political animal herself, is well are of this. posted 04/20/2008 at 13:19:37

I'm sure our "allies" the Saudis could use a man of his caliber. posted 04/12/2008 at 22:02:50

"viewership is not our game" This explains a lot. posted 04/11/2008 at 03:43:36

All of the so-called "progressives" who are applauding Randi's firing basically support censorship. posted 04/11/2008 at 03:27:06

Why aren't you over there "hooking and jabbing" alongside the troops? You make it sound so exciting. posted 04/09/2008 at 00:22:36

The guy's demeanor is really bizarre. posted 04/08/2008 at 22:23:45

"I heard a report" says it all. The fact is, despite the "report" you "heard" (who was the source?), that most Black voters were skeptical of Obama when he first ran, many expressing the opinion that he was "not Black enough". After Bill began the race-baiting, Black voters (and many shocked and disgusted White voters, like myself) began turning their backs on Hillary. posted 04/06/2008 at 18:22:06

Damn! I've been trying to grow a better beard for 30 years and can't get it to come in as thick as his -- and that's not saying much. posted 04/05/2008 at 15:54:18

Political blogs began to burgeon in the aftermath of 9-11 and the lead-up to the Occupation of Iraq, in large part due to the collusion of the mainstream media with the Washington establishment. When we questioned the motivations of the President, we were called traitors. When we protested the imminent war in record numbers, we were ignored by the press, and when our Constitutional rights began to be eroded, the corporate media found it more important to fixate on the results of the "reality" TV show du jour. Elections were rigged, voices of dissent were falsely arrested, and the media-at-large remained mostly silent. Those of us who, increasingly, turn to these blogs for information do so because we know that we cannot count on the corporate media for the facts. Understandably, there is a lot of anger out there. And while I cannot defend the words of every single person who posts anonymously to the blogs, I can understand the frustration that comes from being told, in so many ways, that one's opinion does not matter. I find many of the posts to be very intelligent and thoughtful, and those are the ones I choose to focus my attention on. Perhaps, Ms. Bay, you will find time to pen a post of equal length on the innumerable ways that the institution of which you and your husband have long been a part, the corporate-controlled media, has betrayed the trust of the American people. posted 04/01/2008 at 13:21:07

Your name wouldn't be Bill Clinton, would it? You sound a lot like him. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:31:49

April Fools, right? posted 03/31/2008 at 12:19:54

I didn't say they have an "equal" chance of losing to McCain. Hillary's chances of losing to him are about 100%. I'd give Obama better than 60/40. And I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race, if she would go after McCain and refrain from attacking Obama on a personal level. The longer she continues with her selfish and destructive behavior, and avoids confronting McCain on the issues, the better are Obama's chances of losing. As for herself, Hillary only digs her hole deeper. A person who is already intensely disliked by the majority of Americans, she seems to be doing her utmost to make them despise her even more. Most people that aren't Hillary loyalists are appalled at the depths to which she will go, not only to deprive Obama of the nomination, but to hand the Presidency to McCain. posted 03/31/2008 at 20:21:51

Syco - I'm not sure if your post was intended to be satirical, but I was shocked to see you use the word "mulatto". From Wikipedia:
"It is worth mentioning in general terms, that although this word is perfectly acceptable to some people in certain cultural contexts, other people in other cultural contexts may find it to be offensive and unacceptable." I suppose we could do a poll, but I think most people of mixed descent would find the word offensive. posted 03/31/2008 at 19:58:13

That's just plain dumb and reactionary. I would vote for Barbara Boxer in a heart beat, and ask Obama to step aside! But Hillary Clinton's negatives are much too high, and she simply cannot win the White House. She cannot win the crossover vote or the independents, which Obama has been turning out in record numbers. Quite to the contrary, Hillary's negatives will galvanize the conservatives to get out the vote, which will seriously damage the Democrats' chances of picking up House and Senate seats. But you don't care about that, do you? You just want a woman to win, any woman. Well, perhaps you'll get your chance: I understand Condi Rice is being touted for McCain's VP. posted 03/31/2008 at 15:24:49

You miss my point. She can't win. Obama might not win, but Hillary cannot. And the sooner you come to grips with that reality, the better. posted 03/31/2008 at 14:59:26

The fact is that Hillary cannot win. She is far too hated by far too much of the country. If you want a Democrat to win the White House, it would be a good idea to stop smearing Obama. Because, if Hillary wins, McCain wins; and if McCain wins, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. posted 03/31/2008 at 14:03:44

Like Obama, I don't care if Clinton stays in the race or not, so long as she stops engaging in, as Bill put it, "the politics of personal destruction". posted 03/31/2008 at 13:54:07

The Canadian thing was completely debunked. Please stop repeating the lie. posted 03/31/2008 at 13:50:38

Just when it seemed the Reverend Wright story was about to run its course, yet another Clinton surrogate brings it to the forefront. If Hillary can't have the Democratic nomination, she and her minions will do everything in their power to deprive the Democrats of the White House. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:57:05

Sorry, I don't accept culpability. I've been to more protests, written more letters and emails and made more phone calls than I can count. And I will continue to do so. But the sycophantic media refuses to cover protests or report all the facts, and the do-nothing Congress refuses to respond to the will of the people and perform it's Constitutionally mandated duty in holding this administration accountable for its actions. posted 03/27/2008 at 15:17:15

You're right, Brian, "it's not unfixable". One good start would be for corporate shills like yourself to stop acting as dutiful stenographers for the Bush administration and start actually reporting the facts. posted 03/27/2008 at 13:09:36

Not a lot of diversity there: two southern white men (neither of which carried his own home state in his respective Presidential / Vice Presidential race).

Don't get me wrong, I like them both, but it doesn't make sense to me as a Presidential ticket. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:39:11

Not a lot of diversity there: two southern white men (neither of which carried his own home state in his respective Presidential / Vice Presidential race).

Don't get me wrong, I like them both, but it doesn't make sense to me as a Presidential ticket. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:48:17

Why do you find that hard to believe? My pet rock is smarter and more energetic than Bush. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:32:29

Well it was just a guess, from what I hear on conservative talk radio, so I did a little research. This from a DailyKos posting last fall, quoting a Gallup poll:
"When asked about their willingness to vote for Gore should he become a candidate, two polls conducted this spring found close to half of registered voters saying they would not consider voting for him. Clinton performed better than Gore in the Pew Research Center poll, with 43% of registered voters saying there was no chance they would vote for her. So even if Gore were to enter the race and win the Democratic nomination, he would start out with a substantial level of committed opposition." Here's the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/15/12246/702/406/398260
"Clinton performed better than Gore." Of course, Hillary has done herself a lot of damage since then, but the bottom line is conservatives hate Gore and, in my opinion, his presence in the race would be a big boost for a conservative get out the vote effort. I will say that I think there would be an equal pro-Gore effort from the left, which I don't see happening for Hillary. posted 03/30/2008 at 15:31:42

I'd guess that Al Gore's negative numbers among Republicans are about as high as Hillary's. Either one on the ticket would galvanize conservatives to get out the vote, thereby putting a severe dent in the number of pickups in the House and Senate. Both on the ticket? That would be a recipe for disaster for the Democratic Party and the country.
Joe Klein is not for a Democratic victory. He is for a centrist victory and, like so many of his kind, I believe that he would work to sabotage the Democrats if he sees a progressive, populist, grassroots movement taking hold. posted 03/29/2008 at 13:27:38

Absolutely. Solidarity! posted 03/27/2008 at 10:40:46

You don't think Zucker wrote this commercial, do you? I'm sure it was a writer. posted 03/27/2008 at 10:14:55

Looks like Chris got spanking. posted 03/26/2008 at 11:03:52

I didn't realize Obama's parents were running for office. posted 03/30/2008 at 13:00:01

I've been wondering lately if Hillary is bi-polar. Seriously. Maybe there's a mental health expert out there that has some insight. posted 03/24/2008 at 22:41:06

Air America is still going strong. So that would make you a liar. posted 03/23/2008 at 21:25:36

This is what Jeanne Moos seemed to be arguing in a piece posted on CNN video: "Jon Stewart did it too". Well, Jon Stewart is not news, it is entertainment. And CNN is, well, infotainment at best. posted 03/25/2008 at 13:41:34

I don't watch CNN. When progressives begin to boycott the corporate media in large numbers, then perhaps they'll begin to act like journalists. posted 03/20/2008 at 19:13:03

Osama bin Laden stated that he wanted Bush to win the election. His objective was to draw the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan and bankrupt the nation, just like he did the Soviet Union. He knew Bush was stupid enough to do it; but how could he have imagined that he would be so stupid that he would invade the wrong country?! posted 03/22/2008 at 21:47:29

If you really think our presence is needed in Iraq, why don't you enlist? posted 03/22/2008 at 21:36:13

So how does that explain why we killed over half-a-million Iraqi civillians? They had nothing to do with 9/11. posted 03/22/2008 at 21:34:19