May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
timinhi
Recent comments by this user
Kelsey Grammer Shocked As Show Kicked Off Fox
Interesting... I knew Patricia Heaton is a rightwinger--She's one of those that constantly whines because supposedly, conservatives in Hollywood get "blacklisted" from jobs. I hadn't read/heard that Kelsey Grammar is one too. Considering his crazy past, it's kind of funny if it's true. I always thought that he was overrated as an "actor." He puts on that ridiculous pompous affect to his speech, but from what I understand, he doesn't exactly come from an "upper-class" background. The reason that both "Cheers" & "Frasier" were the successes they were was not particularly because of him--in both cases it was the talent and chemistry of the ensemble casts. To be honest, I've never watched this new show, but frankly, it's concept doesn't sound "new" or particularly interesting. Besides Mary Tyler Moore, there have been at least a few other sitcoms set in news rooms. It's been done to many times. posted 05/14/2008 at 20:55:15
Hillary's Gift to Women
Dear Bettysdad:
It's clear that you know next to nothing about Hillary Clinton. I don't say that as an insult. It's just a sad fact. No offense intended, but you seem to be like many others who look at an accomplished man, and that blurs any perception you have whatsoever of his spouse. People made the same kind of comments about Eleanor Roosevelt back in the 30's through when she died. You should actually read a biography of Hillary. Since you have such an obvious disdain for her, you don't even have to read her own memoir. I would venture to guess that even if you were to read a less-than-flattering biography by one of her rightwing hit squad detractors, you would be enlightened to know that "everything in her life has (NOT) been because of the man she married." Hillary was already an accomplished attorney, and had been a staff attorney for the House Watergate Investigation Committee BEFORE she and Bill were married. There are countless other examples of Hillary's accomplishments that were achieved aside from her marriage to Bill. Barack Obama's handlers on the other hand, took a very sparse resume of a basically failed lawyer-turned politician, and padded it to turn him into this great agent of change. He may be elected President, and that may help him "catch up," but at this point he has a long way to go to match Hillary's experience and qualifications. posted 05/13/2008 at 01:49:21
It's clear that you know next to nothing about Hillary Clinton. I don't say that as an insult. It's just a sad fact. No offense intended, but you seem to be like many others who look at an accomplished man, and that blurs any perception you have whatsoever of his spouse. People made the same kind of comments about Eleanor Roosevelt back in the 30's through when she died. You should actually read a biography of Hillary. Since you have such an obvious disdain for her, you don't even have to read her own memoir. I would venture to guess that even if you were to read a less-than-flattering biography by one of her rightwing hit squad detractors, you would be enlightened to know that "everything in her life has (NOT) been because of the man she married." Hillary was already an accomplished attorney, and had been a staff attorney for the House Watergate Investigation Committee BEFORE she and Bill were married. There are countless other examples of Hillary's accomplishments that were achieved aside from her marriage to Bill. Barack Obama's handlers on the other hand, took a very sparse resume of a basically failed lawyer-turned politician, and padded it to turn him into this great agent of change. He may be elected President, and that may help him "catch up," but at this point he has a long way to go to match Hillary's experience and qualifications. posted 05/13/2008 at 01:49:21
Elections Can't Really be Fair, Free and Accurate if Eligible Voters Can't Vote
Oh yes, Mrs. Carnahan--You're right: We should just let anyone who wants to, vote, and trust them if they say they're "eligible." No one would lie about something like that, right? Here we're having a primary battle where accusations are being thrown around of Rush Limbaugh getting Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries to cause mischief, and you don't think that someone would misrepresent themselves in order to exercise the most cherished right of United States citizens.
It is not overly burdensome to require voters to present valid identification proving they are otherwise "eligible" to vote, just as it is not overy burdensome to require drivers to obtain a drivers license in order to drive--and the "right" to drive is certainly not as important as the right to vote. And your example of a voter with cerebral palsy not being able to match her signature to her voter ID is patently absurd. No court in the land would disqualify her vote. What if a voter loses his/her hands in an accident? Do you think the rules wouldn't allow an exception to the signature requirement? That's just silly. I'm an attorney. posted 05/09/2008 at 23:10:54
It is not overly burdensome to require voters to present valid identification proving they are otherwise "eligible" to vote, just as it is not overy burdensome to require drivers to obtain a drivers license in order to drive--and the "right" to drive is certainly not as important as the right to vote. And your example of a voter with cerebral palsy not being able to match her signature to her voter ID is patently absurd. No court in the land would disqualify her vote. What if a voter loses his/her hands in an accident? Do you think the rules wouldn't allow an exception to the signature requirement? That's just silly. I'm an attorney. posted 05/09/2008 at 23:10:54
Spare Me Your Exits Polls
Oh heck--It doesn't matter WHAT the Clintons say--Obama supporters in their overzealousness, will find fault in it. If they say the sky is blue, you people will claim they are injecting race into the conversation by referring to color. Why are the media or the Obama camp allowed to openly and freely discuss race, but if the Clintons acknowledge actual racial voting trends as reported in the media, they are racists? Even Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter himself, said he didn't see anything wrong with and was not offended by Bill's statement after the SC primary that like Jackson had done in '84 & '88, Obama had run a good campaign and won a heavily African American-weighted primary, but that it was still early in the campaign. It is an historical FACT, and the entire MSM was making the same observation--but since Bill said it, he alone is "lowering the level of discourse." Hypocricy. posted 05/09/2008 at 22:32:44
Bill Clinton's Angry Confrontation With Voter (VIDEO)
One last thing--when it comes to Bill Clinton, HuffPost and the MSM seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word "angry." He'll calmly and in a measured tone refute something that someone else says, and the headline will invariably read: "angry!," "Tirade!", etc. No, of COURSE there's no bias against the Clintons! Pure Fantasyland. posted 05/09/2008 at 19:52:53
Talk about an embarassing fool, this lady in the video needs to get a grip on reality. You can call Bill Clinton a liar if you want, since all politicians (including Obama), sometimes play fast & loose with the truth. In this instance however, Bill is absolutely right. If the MSM is not totally "in the tank for Obama" as portrayed in the infamous SNL sketch, then why didn't CBS News bother to point out that this woman was absolutely wrong on the facts? I guess they've never heard of "Google." Try googling "Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton presidency, 1993, healthcare task force" and see what you get. You'll find that Hillary was appointed to head the task force almost immediately after Bill took office in early '93, and after months of hearings, rallies, research, lobbying of Congress, etc., the plan was abandoned in September, 1994. Now, was she successful? No. Did she go about it completely in the right way? Probably not. Too many closed-door hearings, for example. But to claim she only worked on it for 2 weeks or she didn't do anything is absurd. Read what you come up with on Google. Read Wikipedia. You'll be reminded that public & political opinion was decidedly against universal healthcare during that time (due mostly to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on lobbying by the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries), and Hillary was skewered for it. posted 05/09/2008 at 19:52:32
Reading The Pictures: Preparing For The Second Coming (Of Obama-Mania)
Oops--I meant to type "Punahou School." posted 05/09/2008 at 20:10:44
Eww Woody, You'd better watch what you write on THIS blog. The spirit of political correctness gone insane will have you tarred & feathered faster than you can say "Obamamania." I agree with what you say, except that in fact, on his mom's side, Obama's forebears came from Ireland, and he's actually distantly related to Dick Cheney. His camp routinely disregards the negative aspects of the fact that he was educated in the finest private schools in America, from grade school at Pounahou in Honolulu through Harvard Law. How's that for an "old white guys" pedigree? Obama is, for better or worse, another typical politician, bought & paid for. I've pondered on this blog several times what will happen with all his rabid disciples--er--"supporters," when his myth is debunked, the truth comes out, and he's exposed as a mere mortal. Despite whatever the future holds for America, at least that part will be interesting. posted 05/09/2008 at 20:08:55
Toni Morrison On Calling Bill Clinton The First Black President And Endorsing Obama
Your post exposes your ignorance of history. You clearly know very little about Hillary's life or even a simple timeline of her life. Before you post, you should educate yourself a bit. Even reading one of those rightwing attack books about Hillary would give you a more accurate understanding of her life than you've displayed here. Obama supporters are consumed with hate for anyone who disagrees with them or opposes him. How sad for America. And Morrison gushes about his "wisdom." Give me a break. Is this the "change" and "hope" he keeps talking about? posted 05/09/2008 at 08:07:17
Especially when one considers that the Obamas are multimillionaires, too, and will only continue to increase their wealth exponentially from here on out. posted 05/09/2008 at 08:01:31
Clinton Camp Stoops To Language Games And Overt Race Strategizing
Yeah--I guess the Obama campaign only resorted to COvert race strategizing. posted 05/09/2008 at 06:07:17
Ed Koch: Obama Is A Sure Loser, Clinton Should Fight On
"send him back to the nursing home"
Wow. Are you a part of Obama's "new" "inclusive" "positive not negative" politics?
It fascinates me that when someone poses an opinion that differs from Obama-mania, the response from Obama's supporters invariably is to viciously attack that person on a shallow personal level. You can't simply disagree, or even civily argue the point--Instead, your gut reaction is to go for the jugular--to eviscerate. And your comment isn't even the worst one in the thread. If this is the "change" you guys keep talking about, it doesn't sound much different from what we had before. And for all your insults and dismissiveness, you might keep in mind that Koch has actually won a few elections and has served as an elected executive official over a city of 8 million people with a several billion-dollar budget (compared to Obama's one year of executive experience as editor of the law review). That means that even if Koch is wrong here, his opinion still matters infinitely more than all of yours (and mine, for that matter) combined. Give credit where credit is due. Even Koch's biggest opponents admit he knows a thing or two about politics. Given the way you've treated the only 2-term Democratic president since FDR, I guess it's too much to expect a little respect for the former mayor. posted 05/09/2008 at 07:10:11
Hillary Is John Cleese
You mean, "A shrubbery." posted 05/09/2008 at 06:05:19
You don't even describe the scene correctly. It isn't until after all 4 limbs have been hacked off that the Black Knight utters the "draw" line. posted 05/09/2008 at 06:02:47
Another "The Hillary I Know"
You've tried to cloak your comment in the guise of being some sort of self-appointed expert on narcissism, but ultimately, you are doing the same thing that these other commentors did to Ed Koch. You DON"T know Hillary Clinton, and you are mighty presumptuous and egocentric to presume to psychologically diagnose her, especially when it's clear that your only real motive is to personally denigrate her. What are your qualifications in the first place? Are you a trained clinical psychologist or psychiatrist? By the way--you don't know Obama any better, either. We may all be in for some surprises when it comes to him. posted 05/09/2008 at 07:42:50
You have just described pretty much all the Obama supporters who post comments on this blog. Anyone who disagrees with their ideology is evil and is to be villified and condemned. It is not possible to merely disagree with them or even to engage in civil argument. The only objective is to attack on a vicious, venomous level. I just read another blog on HuffPost about Ed Koch and his support for Hillary despite his believing that Obama will ultimately win the nomination. He believes that Obama will lose to McCain in the general election because of Obama's failure to separate himself from Rev. Wright and his views for 20 years. Now, I expect all Obama supporters to disagree with that assessment and to believe that Obama will handily defeat McCain, despite whatever negatives generated by the Wright controversy. That's fine. But instead of politely disagreeing with the mayor, the many posts following the article were to the effect that Koch is crazy, evil, senile, corrupt, irrelevant to anyone under age 80, belongs in an old folks home, etc. posted 05/09/2008 at 07:42:28
Game, Set, Match: North Carolina and Indiana Settled the Democratic Nomination
Ewwwwwwww . . . Wowee! The TENTH largest state! Can you imagine?! Since you're talking about "large" states, what about California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida & Pennsylvania? How do they fit into your metric?
You Obamabots sure wrote the book on hyperbole. It's far from over--get a grip. posted 05/07/2008 at 18:47:02
You Obamabots sure wrote the book on hyperbole. It's far from over--get a grip. posted 05/07/2008 at 18:47:02
Obama's Coming. Clear the Way.
Dear Mr. Obama-promoter:
This column, like your one from yesterday, is not by any stretch political analysis or discourse. It is a transparent shallow Obama campaign commercial. The primary season is not over, and despite what you say, Hillary Clinton might very well still win, and sadly, you know that. Yes, it appears that the nomination is virtually Obama's to lose, but the operative words are "virtually" and "lose." Yes, young Padawan, Your Jedi Master Obama-wan still is extrememly capable of losing. Again, the shamelessly pro-Obama/anti-Hillary Posters on the equally and overwhelmingly pro-Obama/anti-Hillary-editorially-slanted Huffington Post demonstrate their amateurish bent for hyperbole. "Ascend to the nomination" indeed. Will he get to wear a golden laurel wreath and carry a sceptor? posted 05/07/2008 at 18:57:44
This column, like your one from yesterday, is not by any stretch political analysis or discourse. It is a transparent shallow Obama campaign commercial. The primary season is not over, and despite what you say, Hillary Clinton might very well still win, and sadly, you know that. Yes, it appears that the nomination is virtually Obama's to lose, but the operative words are "virtually" and "lose." Yes, young Padawan, Your Jedi Master Obama-wan still is extrememly capable of losing. Again, the shamelessly pro-Obama/anti-Hillary Posters on the equally and overwhelmingly pro-Obama/anti-Hillary-editorially-slanted Huffington Post demonstrate their amateurish bent for hyperbole. "Ascend to the nomination" indeed. Will he get to wear a golden laurel wreath and carry a sceptor? posted 05/07/2008 at 18:57:44
Obama's Clinton Dilemma
Obama supporters are so sure that everyone else will ultimately love their candidate as they do, but be realistic--he hasn't even been able to convince half of his own party at this late date. Do you really think Hillary's supporters aren't sincere and are just being "contrarian?" You ought not assume that Obama's path to and stay in the White House will be a cake walk. Even if he wins, with the disfunctional no-results Democratic Congress, Obama could very well be another 1-termer like Carter. Hillary must be considering this and looking at 2012 for a possible run ala-Ted Kennedy '80. Also, if she thinks the Obama administration will fail, why would she want to be associated with it and taint her future chances? posted 05/07/2008 at 19:32:07
They don't need 51%, as demonstrated in 2000. Remember the Electoral College? Keep in mind when the Obama Camp is tirelessly touting the fact that they "won more states than Hillary during this primary campaign," most of those states are small red states that will go to McCain in the general election no matter what Obama says or does. Of the large electoral vote-heavy states, NY and Calif. will most likely go to Obama as traditional Dem strongholds (For argument's sake I'm assuming that indeed, Obama will be the nominee, although I'm unconvinced.), as will Illinois, his "home" state. Despite his "win" in the Texas Dem. Caucus, Obama will likely lose Texas. The other large states--Ohio, Pennsylvania, and oh yes--let's not forget Michigan & Florida, who likely now will be P-O'd at Obama & the DNC for disenfranchising them, will be up for grabs. Remember too that with the exception of Illinois, these large states went to Hillary. All those African American stronghold southern states Obama won (yes, including N. & S. Carolina) will likely go red as they usually do when their overwhelmingly conservative white majorities are heard in the general. posted 05/07/2008 at 19:31:45
Exit Polls: Indiana, North Carolina Latest Information
Current HuffPost banner headlines:
"OBAMA ROUTS CLINTON IN NORTH CAROLINA...
PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE?
INDIANA TOO EARLY TO CALL ... See Latest Results... Full Exit Polls: Democratic Crack-Up? ... Clinton's Black Support Drops Even Lower ... Clinton Viewed As 'Attack Dog' ... Obama Seen As Strongest Vs. McCain "
No--I don't suppose HuffPost has a blatantly pro-Obama, anti-Clinton editorial slant, now does it? How can you call it a "rout" when at this point, no numbers have even been published and it's only been called by certain media outlets based on exit poll info? You people are shameless. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:05:50
"OBAMA ROUTS CLINTON IN NORTH CAROLINA...
PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE?
INDIANA TOO EARLY TO CALL ... See Latest Results... Full Exit Polls: Democratic Crack-Up? ... Clinton's Black Support Drops Even Lower ... Clinton Viewed As 'Attack Dog' ... Obama Seen As Strongest Vs. McCain "
No--I don't suppose HuffPost has a blatantly pro-Obama, anti-Clinton editorial slant, now does it? How can you call it a "rout" when at this point, no numbers have even been published and it's only been called by certain media outlets based on exit poll info? You people are shameless. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:05:50
Penn Jillette Makes Hillary "White B*tch" Joke On MSNBC, Joe & Mika Condemn Him
I don't know if he's a prick, but I think he's hugely disingenuous and is conning millions of people. The fact that I don't care for him as a candidate however, doesn't lead me to believe that it's okay to villify him or call him vicious childish names. I guess I'm just not vicious or childish like a lot of the commentors here. This blog has lowered the bar on political discourse so much, that despite all the rhetoric about "new politics," I doubt that it will ever recover. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:17:37
On an Obama/Clinton Ticket: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
You give far to much credit to Obama personally. He has not "deftly" "dismantled" the Clinton machine. It is still alive and well. He likewise is not the "chief architect of the undoing of the Clinton legacy." Perhaps to ardent Obama supporters, the Clinton legacy has been undone, but that is typical Obama camp tunnelvision. He carries barely 50 % of Democratic support in the nation (if that), and just like George W. Bush did, you make it out to be some sort of overwhelming "mandate." Does the word "hyperbole" mean anything to you, or did they not teach that in Freshman Bonehead English when you took it last semester? Moreover, you completely disregard Obama's handlers, most of whom put him up to running in the first place simply because they had an ax to grind against the Clintons. To think that Obama put together and ran his own campaign is infantile, and displays an embarrassingly poor understanding of national politics. Oh but I forgot--Barack went to Harvard Law! He was a "community street organizer!" Shucks! He's a "great orator!" He can do no wrong!
Get a clue: Should Obama be lucky enough to survive the primaries and be nominated, Hillary will want nothing to do with a ticket that would be doomed to lose to McCain. And if he were even luckier enough to be elected President, Hillary will want nothing to do with an administration that will go down in flames after only one term. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:37:24
Get a clue: Should Obama be lucky enough to survive the primaries and be nominated, Hillary will want nothing to do with a ticket that would be doomed to lose to McCain. And if he were even luckier enough to be elected President, Hillary will want nothing to do with an administration that will go down in flames after only one term. posted 05/06/2008 at 20:37:24
Clinton Adviser Claims Indiana Slur Video Is Conspiracy
He did NOT admit to calling Indianans "shit." If you bothered to read the article, you would have seen that he was referring to "the George H.W. Bush White House" when he said, "Those people are shit." (And in fact the Bush Senior White House WAS shit, by the way.) Typical Obama camp dirty tricks. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:24:54
The Deal: Hillary and Obama's "Granita Pact"?
All those things you listed were myths or unsubstantiated (sp!!!) attacks created by the rightwing spin machine to try to destroy the Clintons, which they were unsuccessful at doing, even with a Republican majority in Congress. The reason they were unsuccessful was that when the allegations were investigated (ad nauseum and at considerable taxpayer expense at the instigation of the GOP), no evidence was found of wrong doing.
The "no military uniforms" myth is a good example. One rightwing ex-military officer made the accusation in a book and over & over on Fox News, but it came out that he was exaggerating an untrue second-hand misunderstanding made by another person who got their facts wrong. It never happened and everyone who was in the know, including Republican Generals and Admirals who were there, have refuted the claim, and yet people like you go on spreading the lie. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?
And by the way, the Richard Mellon Scaife-funded people who spread these vicious lies are exactly the same ones who took over our government--the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld-led Neocons who have supremely managed to screw up not only our country, but a sizeable portion of the rest of the world too, and it only took 7 years to do it. And you're willing to trust their judgment on the Clintons . . . pathetic. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:43:17
The "no military uniforms" myth is a good example. One rightwing ex-military officer made the accusation in a book and over & over on Fox News, but it came out that he was exaggerating an untrue second-hand misunderstanding made by another person who got their facts wrong. It never happened and everyone who was in the know, including Republican Generals and Admirals who were there, have refuted the claim, and yet people like you go on spreading the lie. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?
And by the way, the Richard Mellon Scaife-funded people who spread these vicious lies are exactly the same ones who took over our government--the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld-led Neocons who have supremely managed to screw up not only our country, but a sizeable portion of the rest of the world too, and it only took 7 years to do it. And you're willing to trust their judgment on the Clintons . . . pathetic. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:43:17
Michigan's Fake Primary Produced Fake Results
Shameless Pro-Obama propaganda. You can not prove that 700,000 people stayed home because they "knew their vote would not count." There was considerable speculation in all national news media before both the Florida and Michigan primaries that the DNC would eventually relent and count the votes and seat the delegates. Primaries in general usually garner small voter turnout. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name at his own peril. He was not forced by the DNC to do so, just as Clinton was not. You say that no other "viable" candidate chose to remain on the ballot, but you fail to mention that Kucinich (I notice you strategically make a point of not naming him--are you trying not to offend him or his supporters?) chose not to withdraw his name, and at the time, he was still being taken seriously. I'm sure his supporters appreciate your characterization of him here. NOTE TO KUCINICH SUPPORTERS: SIGN HILLARY'S PETITION AT hillaryclinton.com TO COUNT THE VOTES AND SEAT THE DELEGATES! The Democratic Party is supposed to be "democratic," but the Obama wing is advocating taking the right to vote away from Michiganders and Floridians. Right out of the Rove Playbook . . . posted 05/02/2008 at 18:02:04
Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
Gee Peter:
Exactly how is this column really any different from what you're accusing Blumenthal of doing? It's clear where your allegiance lies. This is simply an attack piece on a Clinton sympathizer, in the hopes that readers will attach guilt to Hillary by association with this guy. That's basically what you're accusing him of doing. He happened to be preaching to the choir by sending anti-Obama stuff out to fellow Clinton supporters, one of whom mistakenly forwarded it to you. I wonder how many hit jobs on Clinton that Blumenthal receives in HIS email inbox that were inadvertently forwarded to him by clueless Obama supporters. I know I've received a few in my inbox. It's amazing how Obama is able to claim the high road, all the while sitting back and allowing his supporters and surrogates to do his dirty work for him. I read HuffPost every day and it's filled with blogs and comments from Obama supporters, absolutely villifying Hillary in the most vicious, vulgar terms. Shame on you people for your attempts to install your candidate as the nominee without allowing the people to vote or speak their conscience. The Obama campaign is the most undemocratic one in the "Democratic" Party that I've seen in my lifetime (50 years). posted 05/01/2008 at 23:04:08
Exactly how is this column really any different from what you're accusing Blumenthal of doing? It's clear where your allegiance lies. This is simply an attack piece on a Clinton sympathizer, in the hopes that readers will attach guilt to Hillary by association with this guy. That's basically what you're accusing him of doing. He happened to be preaching to the choir by sending anti-Obama stuff out to fellow Clinton supporters, one of whom mistakenly forwarded it to you. I wonder how many hit jobs on Clinton that Blumenthal receives in HIS email inbox that were inadvertently forwarded to him by clueless Obama supporters. I know I've received a few in my inbox. It's amazing how Obama is able to claim the high road, all the while sitting back and allowing his supporters and surrogates to do his dirty work for him. I read HuffPost every day and it's filled with blogs and comments from Obama supporters, absolutely villifying Hillary in the most vicious, vulgar terms. Shame on you people for your attempts to install your candidate as the nominee without allowing the people to vote or speak their conscience. The Obama campaign is the most undemocratic one in the "Democratic" Party that I've seen in my lifetime (50 years). posted 05/01/2008 at 23:04:08
On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
BINGO!
Also, this "principled" politician who wants to "rise above the politics of hate" sits back and enjoys the benefits of allowing his surrogates and supporters to mercilessly (and endlessly) attack, heap bile on and villify Hillary (& Bill) Clinton (the people Joseph Andrew, the author of this piece, claims to admire so much). What I find utterly amusing, is that the Obama camp's mantra of the last few days is that the media needs to let the Wright story go, that it's "old" news and is distracting from the real issues. Meanwhile, they (and the media) have absolutely no problem whatsoever beating the Tusla Airport story to death--They're all still referencing what a big liar Hillary is because she embellished a story slightly, that had no real significance in the first place compared to the significance of her being in Bosnia on the goodwill mission and visiting American troops, which these people have completely disregarded. What's sickening, is that the media, in their frenzy to help Obama get the nomination, seem to be going along with this mantra. Double standard! Lee Atwater must be smiling in his grave--It's like prettying up his tactics with a nice ribbon & bow and a label that says, "New Politics--No More 'Old' Politics!" Thanks for nothin', Obama! posted 05/01/2008 at 15:04:46
Also, this "principled" politician who wants to "rise above the politics of hate" sits back and enjoys the benefits of allowing his surrogates and supporters to mercilessly (and endlessly) attack, heap bile on and villify Hillary (& Bill) Clinton (the people Joseph Andrew, the author of this piece, claims to admire so much). What I find utterly amusing, is that the Obama camp's mantra of the last few days is that the media needs to let the Wright story go, that it's "old" news and is distracting from the real issues. Meanwhile, they (and the media) have absolutely no problem whatsoever beating the Tusla Airport story to death--They're all still referencing what a big liar Hillary is because she embellished a story slightly, that had no real significance in the first place compared to the significance of her being in Bosnia on the goodwill mission and visiting American troops, which these people have completely disregarded. What's sickening, is that the media, in their frenzy to help Obama get the nomination, seem to be going along with this mantra. Double standard! Lee Atwater must be smiling in his grave--It's like prettying up his tactics with a nice ribbon & bow and a label that says, "New Politics--No More 'Old' Politics!" Thanks for nothin', Obama! posted 05/01/2008 at 15:04:46
Roy Sekoff with Dan Abrams on the Media's Obsession with Rev. Wright
I don't think Bush was any more qualified than Obama is (and I think Obama is horribly underqualified as well). Arguably, Bush had more "experience," but not from his being twice elected to the Texas governorship, a post that is largely ceremonial compared to most other states' governors. He did, however, have a lot of valuable experience from being close to the seat of power, in that his Dad had been a 2-term Veep and 1-term Prez (plus CIA Director). He (G.W.B.) held high positions in all of those campaigns, and was an "informal" advisor to his dad. That's similar to Hillary's political experience as Bill's wife, the operative difference being that Hillary actually has a brain, and has a lot of successful professional experience in her own right. If you're truly dumb as a post, all the "experience" in the world isn't gonna help much. The fact that Bush has now served two terms could arguably mean that he's now "very qualified" (certainly he's very "experienced")--but would you vote for him if he could run again? I also think your observations about Obama's personal and business relationships with these people are very relevant. The same types of inquiries have been made ad nauseum about Hillary Clinton (also arguably relevant) and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:13:59
Defining Insanity
Seriously, Marlin--
I think that a lot of what you say is true, but you still have to be pragmatic and realistic. Our system is what it is. Do you think there's an electable politician in America who does not come with some baggage and who is going to be satisfactory to everyone? Even the most successful presidents in modern history had substantial core opposition. American politics breeds strange bedfellows and forges unholy alliances. The system is terribly flawed because politicians (especially members of the House, who serve 2-yr. terms), once they are elected, spend most of their time raising funds to run for REelection. That means a lot of mutual back-scratching and favors. And that's just ONE of many negative aspects of our "democratic" system. There's no way to fix them all--I think ultimately, we MUST simply choose the least of evils. If you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:26:02
I think that a lot of what you say is true, but you still have to be pragmatic and realistic. Our system is what it is. Do you think there's an electable politician in America who does not come with some baggage and who is going to be satisfactory to everyone? Even the most successful presidents in modern history had substantial core opposition. American politics breeds strange bedfellows and forges unholy alliances. The system is terribly flawed because politicians (especially members of the House, who serve 2-yr. terms), once they are elected, spend most of their time raising funds to run for REelection. That means a lot of mutual back-scratching and favors. And that's just ONE of many negative aspects of our "democratic" system. There's no way to fix them all--I think ultimately, we MUST simply choose the least of evils. If you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:26:02
Well then, Marlin--You should throw YOUR hat into the ring. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:17:46
Hillary Clinton And Bill O'Reilly Square Off On The Factor: Watch Video
WHERE do you people come up with stuff like this?! If the Repubs are "salivating" for McCain to face Hillary, then explain why all the national polls right now show Hillary beating McCain, and McCain beating Obama? You just say these things with nothing to back them up. The one they've been "salivating" to face since the beginning is your golden boy Obama. They're itchin' to make him look like an inexperienced, dishonest, unAmerican possibly radical Muslim socialist who additionally wants to kill babies, let gays marry and take everyone's guns away. From the crappy way he's handled the Wright scandal, all evidence suggests he'll wilt just like Kerry & Gore did before him. And look who's been leading the charge to hand the nomination to Obama on a silver platter, without his earning it--the corporate-owned mainstream media. Why do you suppose General Electric, the owners of NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, and one of the largest defense contractors in the world, would want Obama to run against McCain? You people are saps. posted 05/01/2008 at 07:30:36
Johnny Come Late-Nightly
You're right. I see the criticism of the Late-Nites as scapegoating. I wouldn't tune in if they didn't bother to make light of or ridicule political issues and politicians themselves--and I am certainly not one of those viewers who gets his news from those shows (I obviously read HuffPost, for example, even though I disagree with it's extremely pro-Obama editorial slant). If there is a large segment of the population who gets their news of the world from Leno or Letterman or Colbert or Stewart or whomever, there's very little that can be done about it at this point. If we were to make those shows "serious news" format programs instead of what they are now, do you really think Middle America will even bother to tune in? That's like assuming that if you have a classroom full of 13 year-old comic book readers and you replace their comics with copies of War & Peace, that the kids will read Tolstoy. As Bush Senior use to say--"Ain't gonna happen!" posted 05/01/2008 at 17:38:47
For What Profits A Man If He Gains The Whole World But Loses His Own Soul
I have an invisible friend too. His name is Larry. posted 04/26/2008 at 22:05:37
Hillary Is Not A Monster
Perfect. First you say she's not a monster, and then you proceed to demonize her, leaving the impression that she is in fact a monster. You are just as manipulative as the "3 a.m." commercial you tear apart, like you're some sort of movie critic. You may have "worked for a president" (not as big a deal as it sounds, so did Monica Lewinsky and Dick Morris), but this is just a campaign ad, it's NOT "Gone With the Wind," and you're certainly NOT Roger Ebert. posted 04/26/2008 at 20:39:26
The Sean Bell Tragedy
(cont.)These cops MAY have been guilty as sin, I don't know for sure--but they got off--just like O.J., so it's time to move on. There may be grounds for a civil case (I assume his family has filed some kind of suit), and maybe like with O.J., that is where justice is to be had. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue trying to put them in jail. Perhaps all the noise will give juries and judges pause in future cases, but that's what we always hope and we still always have dissatisfied people every time a high-publicity case is decided, on one side or the other of an issue.
My experience informs me however, that with our present system, it's for all practical purposes a myth that innocent people are "often" convicted. Vastly more guilty people get off scott-free. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:24:23
My experience informs me however, that with our present system, it's for all practical purposes a myth that innocent people are "often" convicted. Vastly more guilty people get off scott-free. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:24:23
"MoeSart": You hit the nail on the head. And a lot of the people who are pissing and moaning about the acquittal of these three cops (two of whom were Aftrican-Americans), were dancing in the streets when O.J. got off. I was a longtime prosecuting attorney. Those of us who have actually worked on these cases know that the press never gets everything right about a case, even to the extent of completely misrepresenting what occurred or what was said in court. Even relying on the evidence allowed in court is often misleading, because much is suppressed or simply not brought up. If you read all the police reports and other documents in a casefile, you get a lot closer to the truth, but when you actually talk to the witnesses, cops & civilians, and hear all the stuff, some of which can't be testified to because it has been ruled inadmissible, only THEN can you get close to what really happened. I lost my share of cases where I knew absolutely that the defendants were guilty, but I know I never convicted an innocent person. Once I had a case that went to trial and halfway into it, I realized that what the defendant did, although probably illegal, did not fit the definition of the crimes he was charged with and I immediately moved for a dismissal, to the consternation of the judge, who nonetheless granted the motion. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:23:50
Cop Acquittal in the Sean Bell Killing Was Inevitable
Earl--
I am a former longtime (10 yrs) prosecutor. You are absolutely correct in your observations. The same things you say often apply to many defendants who do not happen to be police officers. The system is what it is.
There will always be some people who are dissatisfied with how it works (whether it's white people and law enforcement people howling about O.J. getting off, or minorities upset with what happened to Amadou Diallo when his killers got off), but our flawed system is not likely to change. Once there is an acquittal, there's not a lot (at least criminally) that can be done about it. Cops do not always get off. I prosecuted a couple, and I know of others too, who were convicted. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:45:04
I am a former longtime (10 yrs) prosecutor. You are absolutely correct in your observations. The same things you say often apply to many defendants who do not happen to be police officers. The system is what it is.
There will always be some people who are dissatisfied with how it works (whether it's white people and law enforcement people howling about O.J. getting off, or minorities upset with what happened to Amadou Diallo when his killers got off), but our flawed system is not likely to change. Once there is an acquittal, there's not a lot (at least criminally) that can be done about it. Cops do not always get off. I prosecuted a couple, and I know of others too, who were convicted. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:45:04
George McGovern: Still Backing Clinton, But Going Way Off Script
Merican,
Who are YOU to question George McGovern's "integrity?" Do you even know a thing about his personal history? Have you read Stephen Ambrose's book about him during WW II? Are we going to see another iconic figure of the Democratic party torn down just because he doens't lick Obama's boots, like the Obama camp tried to do with Geraldine Ferraro? And did you really vote for McGovern, or are you maybe talking about your grandparents? Obama supporters, who don't understand a thing about party loyalty, and feel the need to not just criticize a fellow Democratic opponent, but demonize, deride, excoriate and scorn her, are the ones who will cause an irreparable rift in the Democratic Party. posted 04/26/2008 at 20:27:17
Who are YOU to question George McGovern's "integrity?" Do you even know a thing about his personal history? Have you read Stephen Ambrose's book about him during WW II? Are we going to see another iconic figure of the Democratic party torn down just because he doens't lick Obama's boots, like the Obama camp tried to do with Geraldine Ferraro? And did you really vote for McGovern, or are you maybe talking about your grandparents? Obama supporters, who don't understand a thing about party loyalty, and feel the need to not just criticize a fellow Democratic opponent, but demonize, deride, excoriate and scorn her, are the ones who will cause an irreparable rift in the Democratic Party. posted 04/26/2008 at 20:27:17
Vetting the Candidates: An American Tradition
Yeah, but I'm assuming you don't McCain's wife like he does. Maybe she's not too nice, Nonetheless, of course, it's still bad form to air one's dirty laundry in public if one is running for POTUS. posted 05/02/2008 at 18:19:05
CNN Sued For $1.3 Billion Over Cafferty Remarks
What I learned in first year law school about libel/slander:
Truth is always a defense.
China's leaders ARE "thugs & goons," and a lot of their products ARE junk. Who is going to deny what happened with the poison toothpaste, the lead paint on toys, and the poison pet food?
Whatever one thinks of Cafferty--he's still entitled to his opinion. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:06:39
Truth is always a defense.
China's leaders ARE "thugs & goons," and a lot of their products ARE junk. Who is going to deny what happened with the poison toothpaste, the lead paint on toys, and the poison pet food?
Whatever one thinks of Cafferty--he's still entitled to his opinion. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:06:39
End It Now
Mr. Zogby--
You are a professional pollster. I am an attorney. In my profession, we are held to extreme defined ethical and moral standards. I am unaware if pollsters, as a group, have any such standards or guidelines. Common sense however, leads me to believe that a pollster, if he is to be given even a shred of credibility, should remain neutral, unbiased and detached from the issues or candidates he is polling on. You obviously haven't maintained or exhibited such neutrality, as evidenced by this post. As such, in my opinion, you are not to be granted any credibility, and you have acted appallingly unprofessionally. This post is a disgrace to your profession and taints all pollsters. If there IS some professional organization or "guild" or whatever that governs the actions and behavior of pollsters, your membership in that organization should be revoked. posted 04/24/2008 at 19:55:03
You are a professional pollster. I am an attorney. In my profession, we are held to extreme defined ethical and moral standards. I am unaware if pollsters, as a group, have any such standards or guidelines. Common sense however, leads me to believe that a pollster, if he is to be given even a shred of credibility, should remain neutral, unbiased and detached from the issues or candidates he is polling on. You obviously haven't maintained or exhibited such neutrality, as evidenced by this post. As such, in my opinion, you are not to be granted any credibility, and you have acted appallingly unprofessionally. This post is a disgrace to your profession and taints all pollsters. If there IS some professional organization or "guild" or whatever that governs the actions and behavior of pollsters, your membership in that organization should be revoked. posted 04/24/2008 at 19:55:03
Last Night Clinton Won the Pennsylvania Primary, but Lost the War for the Nomination
Good. Why don't you take your marbles, go home and sit in a corner and cry. Do you really think any of those shows really give a rat's patoot if you don't watch?--Especially Morning Joe. They just figure that you're probably watching all the OTHER blatantly Pro-Obama/anti-Hillary biased shows on their MSNBC so-called "news" network, like Olbermann and Matthews, anyway. You, like all the other rabid Obamabots who blog here should be ashamed of yourselves for the vicious language you use against your fellow Democrats. Oh I'm sorry--I guess I shouldn't make the assumption that you're a Democrat. It's funny though to see you gripe about Hillary supposedly "manipulating" people, when it's so clearly obvious that you've allowed yourself to be manipulated big time by other forces. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:21:11
Hillary's New Inevitability
For a "long time democrat," you certainly don't sound like one. This new mantra of "too many Bushes/Clintons--It's time for 'change'" defies all logic. Wasn't too long ago really that practically every Democrat in the country was wishing there'd be a Kennedy "dynasty"--First Jack, then Bobby, then Teddy--24 years. When all that failed to materialize, people were still talking about John Jr., or any of the other hundreds of Kennedy kids who seem to have entered politics, running for president someday (i.e., Bobby Jr.). Nobody cried foul about too many Kennedys. It was as if we could never get ENOUGH Kennedys. But now suddenly it's a bad thing for qualified and experienced relatives of a successful president to consider running, because the only important thing is "change." The Obama camp has brainwashed its followers into lumping one of the most successful administrations along with 2 of the worst, as though they were the same thing. Where WERE you people during the 90s? Of course we all remember the discord brought on by Republicans who threw everything they could, including the kitchen sink, at Bill Clinton, and still failed to bring him down (They'll do the same with Obama). Why couldn't they? Because he brought about the greatest prosperity and international good will in American history, and left office with some of the highest approval ratings in modern history. Damned right I want more of THAT same! posted 04/24/2008 at 18:48:52
Is Hillary's Win a Win?
Yeah right--Just like Kerry lost HIS senate seat. Your'e right about one thing though--New Yorkers AREN'T stupid. In fact, although most of them would like to see Hillary in the White House, they'll be almost as pleased to have her remain their senator, because unlike Obama, she actually knows what she's doing in the Senate, works well with other legislators on both sides of the aisle, and has actually accomplished things there. The difference between you (as well as most other Obamabots who post here) and most NY voters is that they're not nearly as hateful as you seem to be. The absolutely pure hate and bile you heap on Hillary is appalling. I wonder how Obama, this supposed "agent of change" really feels about the quality of people that make up the core of his supporters . . . I wonder if he's at all embarrassed. posted 04/24/2008 at 19:01:07
A Presidential Cookie
Why do you find it necessary to even say something like this? This whole site has become nothing more than an example of what is not civil discourse. posted 04/22/2008 at 19:50:33
Bill Clinton: Obama "Played The Race Card On Me"... Listen To Audio
Everything he said was a FACT and the Obama camp DID pull the race card on him. Obama supporters are not true Democrats. What next--are you going to turn your disrespect on FDR too? posted 04/22/2008 at 20:00:53
Hillary Clinton In Pennsylvania: It's All Too Late
I just hope that when the McCain or Obama administration crashes and burns over the next 4 years, Hillary will still be around and will still be gracious enough to pick up the pieces, after she's been so shabbily treated by this country. posted 04/22/2008 at 20:04:46
Best Case Scenarios Failed; Time to Trot Out the Worst-Case Scenarios
Uh oh, Harry--Isn't writing about Iraq getting a bit "off-message?" Aren't you afraid that your readers might forget about the huge World-conspiracy to drown New Orleans?
HARRY RESPONDS: Cute, but wrong. There's no allegation of any such thing, just three independent forensic engineering studies blaming the Corps of Engineers for disastrously faulty design and construction work. Read em and laugh. posted 04/21/2008 at 15:50:08
HARRY RESPONDS: Cute, but wrong. There's no allegation of any such thing, just three independent forensic engineering studies blaming the Corps of Engineers for disastrously faulty design and construction work. Read em and laugh. posted 04/21/2008 at 15:50:08
Top 10 Celebrity Clinton Supporters
Since you're obviously such a policy wonk--I'd be interested to hear what issues YOU think are most important . . . Oh yeah, I know--You support "change" and "hope." Yeah, that's really specific, isn't it? You obviously know nothing about Longoria beyond the fact that she's on a popular TV series. If she jumped on the Obamabot bandwagon, you'd probably be hailing her as the new Eleanor Roosevelt . . . For all you know, as a very successful person in her field, she's better versed on the issues than any of us idiots sitting in front of our computer monitors. I notice that Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, Chris Rock & Scarlett Johansson are on Obama's list--I suppose they must be the Wm. F. Buckleys of the Left in your book, heh? I like many of these people as performers, but I know nothing of the depth of their political insight. I don't hold it against them if they choose to support Obama, and although I'm delighted if a person supports Hillary as I do, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to go to one of their movies or watch their show. I have never watched Desperate Housewives, although I did once see Longoria & her NBA husband interviewed on some other show. I get that Obama supporters feel the need to demonize Hillary and do so at every opportunity, but you don't have to demonize everyone who doesn't support Obama. Right now that's significantly more than half the posted 04/21/2008 at 15:46:52
Asking Questions about ABC's Gotcha Debate
"Softnsweet":
"Obama better learn how to get down. If he does not know than he better ask Michelle[?]"
You scare me. "Clinton's negative campaigning of Obama?" Pure hypocritical crap. Obamites get their panties in a bind by what they call "gotcha" politics, when skeletons from Barack's closet are brought out into the light (like his associations with radicals and crazy preachers), but it's perfectly okay to bludgeon Hillary's comments about the landing in Tuzla to death as though what happened there on the tarmac mattered one way or the other anyway (compared to her actual good will mission there). It's perfectly okay to scour through every word Hillary said at some unimportant meeting in 1995 where the midterm election defeat was "analyzed," to try to illustrate that she's somehow more "elitist" than Barack is, even though HIS comments were made a couple WEEKS ago. And then every yahoo in the world who supports Obama is able to demonize Hillary using every conceivable personal insult, right here on HuffPo, and Obama and his campaign, as well as the blog "moderators" do absolutely nothing to reign in the viscious attacks. And then ObamaCo continues to spout on about how he's about "change" and "hope" and "a new kind of politics." Shame on all of you. posted 04/19/2008 at 06:23:56
"Obama better learn how to get down. If he does not know than he better ask Michelle[?]"
You scare me. "Clinton's negative campaigning of Obama?" Pure hypocritical crap. Obamites get their panties in a bind by what they call "gotcha" politics, when skeletons from Barack's closet are brought out into the light (like his associations with radicals and crazy preachers), but it's perfectly okay to bludgeon Hillary's comments about the landing in Tuzla to death as though what happened there on the tarmac mattered one way or the other anyway (compared to her actual good will mission there). It's perfectly okay to scour through every word Hillary said at some unimportant meeting in 1995 where the midterm election defeat was "analyzed," to try to illustrate that she's somehow more "elitist" than Barack is, even though HIS comments were made a couple WEEKS ago. And then every yahoo in the world who supports Obama is able to demonize Hillary using every conceivable personal insult, right here on HuffPo, and Obama and his campaign, as well as the blog "moderators" do absolutely nothing to reign in the viscious attacks. And then ObamaCo continues to spout on about how he's about "change" and "hope" and "a new kind of politics." Shame on all of you. posted 04/19/2008 at 06:23:56
The Weather Underground False Debate
"[A] candidate's relations, when he was 8 years old[?]" Palermo, you make it sound like Obama crossed paths with Ayers when Obama was 8. Are you really a college professor? The "relations" occurred in the 90s, and they continue today, as Ayers actively supports his friend Barrack. You know that, so it's disgraceful and you insult our intelligence by trying to make it appear otherwise. posted 04/20/2008 at 00:11:15
Hillary And The Commies
Well if you hate her so much, then you should be happy that "she's her own worst enemy" and there should be no reason for all the horrible, insulting, vitriolic things Obama supporters repeatedly get away with posting about her on this site. You pour hateful insults on her, and then you get all bent out of shape if a reporter asks your candidate a perfectly reasonable but uncomfortable question. Yeah--so Hillary worked with Bob Treuhaft's law firm 35 years ago. Treuhaft, along with his wife Jessica, were very nice people incidentally, and the insinuation that just because they were socialists they were also "radicals" in the sense that the Weathermen were is libelous. They, unlike Obama's buddies, NEVER advocated blowing anything up, or killing police officers. And Hillary's associations of 35 years ago, when the vast majority of young American students were virulently against the Vietnam War, are a lot less "current" than Mr. Obama's associations with Bill Ayers that continue to this day. posted 04/20/2008 at 00:05:55
Where Is the League of Women Voters When We Need Them?
You guys get all bent out of shape because your candidate repeatedly does poorly in the debates, no matter WHO sponsors them, and you just don't seem to get that his performance in debates is a reflection of his intellectual acuity under stressful situations. Get a clue: Being President is all about stressful and even hostile situations. If he can't even handle hostile questioning from a couple of TV news personalities, how is he going to deal with Putin, or Ahmedinejad, or even a host of American Republican politicians who would love nothing better than to embarrass him? You guys want to kill the messenger, but we've had televised presidential debates since Kennedy/Nixon in '60, and it is what it is. It's one of the "trials by fire" that every serious presidential candidate must endure. Clearly Obama, supposedly a "great orator," recognizes his failings in this area because he's already declined more than once to debate his opponent. Doesn't say a lot for his courage under fire. From the ridiculous outcry from the Obama camp about how "unfair" ("Wah-wah-wah!") this and previous debates have been to their candidate, I'm surprised that Marty Kaplan is only saying that the Networks should get out of the "debate business" and instead isn't calling for the abolishment of debates altogether--at least until Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House. posted 04/19/2008 at 23:50:50
The Boss Picks A Boss: Bruce Springsteen Endorses Obama
"Bluesage":
Amen. I'm a Boss fan and a Clinton supporter. No contradiction there as far as I'm concerned. posted 04/19/2008 at 22:39:08
Amen. I'm a Boss fan and a Clinton supporter. No contradiction there as far as I'm concerned. posted 04/19/2008 at 22:39:08
Bill Clinton Suggests Young Voters Too Easily Fooled
"foreffectivegovernment":
You are so right. This "majority" of young "Temporary Democrats" as you call them, when they are older, like most rational older voters, will not consider supporting an ill-experienced newcomer candidate who has puffed up and misrepresented his/her resume and is 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years their junior to hold the highest office in the Free World. Right now, as naive 20-somethings, they look at 46 year-old Barack and think he is so old and wise compared to them. This country is resilient and can survive the leadership of an unqualified and unready president. We've had our share, we have one now, and we will survive even him. Unfortunately, America is at a crucial turning point in her history and it is not a good time for such foolhardy experimentation. Also, it hurts that time after time, the Democratic Party shoots itself in the foot and has to learn the hard way who not to run against the Republican nominee. As an experienced (several times moreso than Obama) attorney, I'd like to know the true, actual circumstances under which Barack left the practice of law after only two years as an associate attorney, and not having made partner in his firm. NO ONE with a Harvard Law degree, quits a prestigeous law firm after only 2 years to "pursue other interests" and become a "community street organizer" (whatever that is) unless he has been "encouraged" to do so by the firm's partners. posted 04/19/2008 at 23:12:27
You are so right. This "majority" of young "Temporary Democrats" as you call them, when they are older, like most rational older voters, will not consider supporting an ill-experienced newcomer candidate who has puffed up and misrepresented his/her resume and is 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years their junior to hold the highest office in the Free World. Right now, as naive 20-somethings, they look at 46 year-old Barack and think he is so old and wise compared to them. This country is resilient and can survive the leadership of an unqualified and unready president. We've had our share, we have one now, and we will survive even him. Unfortunately, America is at a crucial turning point in her history and it is not a good time for such foolhardy experimentation. Also, it hurts that time after time, the Democratic Party shoots itself in the foot and has to learn the hard way who not to run against the Republican nominee. As an experienced (several times moreso than Obama) attorney, I'd like to know the true, actual circumstances under which Barack left the practice of law after only two years as an associate attorney, and not having made partner in his firm. NO ONE with a Harvard Law degree, quits a prestigeous law firm after only 2 years to "pursue other interests" and become a "community street organizer" (whatever that is) unless he has been "encouraged" to do so by the firm's partners. posted 04/19/2008 at 23:12:27
The Real Feminist Thing To Do is Acknowledge Hillary's Failures as a Candidate and Move On
"Jerome Zeifman, former Watergate committee counsel, has filed charges before the International Criminal Tribunal that threaten Bill Clinton with a war-crimes indictment. Zeifman [says] the proposed indictment specifically incorporates all the charges of war crimes already pending against Milosevic and his henchmen . . . namely, violations of the laws or customs of war [including] murder, ill-treatment . . . of civilian population, . . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder . . . and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war."
Yeah--This Zeitman guy sounds really credible. I'm not sure how old he is, but it sounds like dementia to me. Oops! I'd better watch what I write, or Zeifman might try to get ME indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:01:48
Yeah--This Zeitman guy sounds really credible. I'm not sure how old he is, but it sounds like dementia to me. Oops! I'd better watch what I write, or Zeifman might try to get ME indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:01:48
Obama: Hillary, McCain Using "Very Same Words" Against Me
Obama doesn't have to "attack" Hillary (although the "Annie Oakley" comments were over the top), he has minions like you--surrogates and supporters (including HuffPo) who relentlessly and visciously go after her while he sits back and does & says nothing to reign them in. And yet, if any Clinton supporter, no matter how previously beloved, (even Geraldine Ferraro) says anything that the Obama camp finds remotely objectionable, it is demanded that Hillary summarily fire them. That's certainly fair. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:33:51
It's Impossible to be Proud of the Way Hillary Has Run This Campaign
And how do you figure that he built his success on his own? What no one wants to mention is the "scholarships" he received his entire academic career from age 10 that were based on his race. How does a "B-student" (according to his Punahou high school teachers in Honolulu) get into the very best Ivy League schools? I'm all for financial aid (I received some in college). I'm all for affirmative action. But to use it and then turn around and make the claim that you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps is disingenuous.
You are misrepresenting the claims of "elitism." They are not based on his socio-economic status. They're based on the condescension with which he treats the lowly peons who weren't fortunate enough to receive a free education at the most exclusive, expensive and best educational institutions in the U.S. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:29:30
You are misrepresenting the claims of "elitism." They are not based on his socio-economic status. They're based on the condescension with which he treats the lowly peons who weren't fortunate enough to receive a free education at the most exclusive, expensive and best educational institutions in the U.S. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:29:30
"Barack Obama has a father from Kenya and mother from Kansas . . . to claim that a guy like Obama who built his success completely on his own and from the bottom up is an elitist is beyond ridiculous."
No, what's "beyond ridiculous" is the way you and other Obama supporters persist in rewriting his personal history. First of all, what difference does it make where Obama's parents were from? It is a fact that Obama Sr. was a pretty big player in the Kenyan government until he pissed them off by disparaging their policies. According to Time Magagzine, Obama's mother held a powerful position within the Ford Foundation at one point during her career. His grandmother, the one he recently threw under the bus with insinuations of racism, was a highly paid corporate vice president within a powerful Hawaii Bank corporation.
I saw another of his supporters on CNN yesterday claiming Obama was raised poor on food stamps in Kansas. While for a short time between marriages his mom received food stamps, Obama was raised in a middle class family and never visited Kansas until relatively recently. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:28:54
No, what's "beyond ridiculous" is the way you and other Obama supporters persist in rewriting his personal history. First of all, what difference does it make where Obama's parents were from? It is a fact that Obama Sr. was a pretty big player in the Kenyan government until he pissed them off by disparaging their policies. According to Time Magagzine, Obama's mother held a powerful position within the Ford Foundation at one point during her career. His grandmother, the one he recently threw under the bus with insinuations of racism, was a highly paid corporate vice president within a powerful Hawaii Bank corporation.
I saw another of his supporters on CNN yesterday claiming Obama was raised poor on food stamps in Kansas. While for a short time between marriages his mom received food stamps, Obama was raised in a middle class family and never visited Kansas until relatively recently. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:28:54
Clinton: Obama Blaming Voters For His Own Failures
And I suppose you never attacked Hillary's husband, right? Or for that matter, you had nothing but reverence for Hillary while Bill was President? I don't know if I'd use the word "scoundrel," but the word "hypocrite" comes to mind. For better or worse, these people, political spouses, have put themselves in the public eye. They've made their cases for their candidate/spouses, and even criticized their opponents. That makes them fair game. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:48:58
Who's Really Out of Touch Here?
What I like is how people like this post's author are totally rewriting Obama's personal history and completely getting away with it. Where does he get off saying that Obama came from "very modest means?" We in Hawaii, where Obama was born and grew up, know the truth. Obama's parents were both PhDs. While his mom for much of the time was a single mother (married/divorced twice), she was financially an average middle class woman, raising her two children with the help of her middle/upper middle class parents. Obama's grandmother, with whom he lived, was a very well-paid corporate bank vicepresident. He attended the most exclusive and prestigeous private prep school in Hawaii, albeit supposedly "on scholarship." According to teachers at Punahou School who were there and knew him, he was a "'B' student." He was accepted and spent 2 years at a small exclusive private college in L.A. (Occidental) before transferring to Ivy League Columbia University and subsequently graduating from Harvard Law School (The best, most exclusive--again private--Law School in the WORLD). Sure, he's an intelligent guy (although one wonders how a "'B' student" gets into the Ivy League) and a good politician, but it's not necessary to make his origins more humble than they actually were. Hillary's upbringing was similarly middle class--Are Obama's supporters trying to "out-humble" her? Is it because he's African American? Should we expect to soon read that he was a poor sharecropper's son? posted 04/13/2008 at 00:32:43
Here We Go Again
I hate to burst YOUR bubble . . . but Obama is a lot WORSE than McCain in my book--Hah! Just Kidding! Got your attention, though, didn't I? Actually, this just points up the difference between Hillary's supporters and many if not most of Obama's. You Obama guys, no matter what, never miss an opportunity to make a mean-spirited, nasty dig at Hillary. You'll notice that I, however, a Hillary supporter, respond to "glesslib's" altruistic comment by saying, "You're right, glesslib. We Democrats should stick together and stop attacking each other's candidates! We should support whoever wins the nomination against McCain!" You'll notice that despite my little joke above, I'm not using this as an opportunity to personally attack Obama, who by all accounts is a good and decent (although in my opinion, misguided and not yet qualified--although still better than McCain) presidential candidate. In other words, unlike many Obama supporters, I'm a loyal Democrat. Hopefully, after he loses the nomination, Obama's supporters will listen to him when he tells them to put aside their silly hatefulness against OUR party's nominee. posted 04/14/2008 at 23:33:35
Why A Woman In The White House?
Hillary Clinton is not the "first" woman to run for president. Ever heard of Rep. Shirley Chisolm? I'm not sure if Hillary is even the SECOND female candidate, as I recall that there was one long ago too. Hillary definitely is the first "serious" female candidate. And you, "bailey2006," need to get a grip. You obviously are consumed with hatred for Hillary, which is totally out of proportion to reality. Hillary, no matter how flawed she is, is not the antichrist, nor is it true that she "has no integrity." That is simply a mean-spirited personal swipe, and is inappropriate in civil discourse. If you disagree with her on the issues or just, as you say, don't want "the same old same old," fine. You are entitled to such opinions and I respect that, although I disagree personally. But your implication that she is somehow pure evil is over the top. I don't like Obama as a candidate, but it would not be appropriate to claim he "has no integrity," or that I wouldn't "want my [child] to grow up to be like him." That type of negativity is giving Democrats the same type of image as the GOP over the last 20 years. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:40:56
Begala: "Nothing But Contempt" For Penn, Compares Him To Rumsfeld
Funny . . . I was thinking the same thing about you. The operative word in "civil discourse" is "civil." posted 04/11/2008 at 16:33:08
That's interesting--I made a similar observation yesterday, regarding the post from the Obama suppporter who was griping because he was removed from the California delegate candidate list. Even though the post had nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary or her campaign, numerous Obama supporters took the opportunity to post mean-spirited anti-Clinton comments. It's the norm on HuffPo. ALL commenters, regardless of what camp they belong to, should refrain from the constant hate-filled personal attacks. It's fair game to criticize one or the other based on legitimate issues. I don't think Obama is qualified yet to serve as president. That's fair. If someone says that Hillary's judgement is suspect or that her past baggage makes her too devisive or unelectable, That's fair. But this "he or she is the personification of evil" crap has got to stop. It's making our side (the Democratic Party) look foolish and unable to govern. posted 04/11/2008 at 16:31:42
Obama: I Would Have Fired Mark Penn
"Mattie": You're right--and while we're on the subject, remember when the whole Rev. Wright controversy broke, Obama claimed that he never heard Rev. Wright make such statements, nor had he attended the sermons in question. A week later, Obama gave his "famous" speech in which he backpedaled and admitted that he HAD been present at the sermons, HAD heard Wright's outrageous statements (which of course, he did not agree with), but that he would not "disown" Wright any more than he would his white granny. My question: WHY was Obama not torn apart by the media for his initial lie (claiming he never heard Wright make the statements) the way Hillary was for her innocuous Bosnia story? He basically admitted he actually lied, not "misspoke," and yet typically, he got a complete pass. AND Wright is still his mentor, advisor, friend, etc. Yeah, that's fair. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:55:36
Who Killed Katie Couric?
"randhobob":
I don't have a problem with Katie Couric--or any of the other "journalists" you listed (Well, actually, I don't care for Matthews). If I want to listen to "the news" all I care about is that the person giving it knows how to read and pronounce words and names correctly. Usually it's the content or writing that is suspect, and the reader, let's face it, usually doesn't have much to do with those things.
All that said, I have to agree with pretty much everything you said. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:28:09
I don't have a problem with Katie Couric--or any of the other "journalists" you listed (Well, actually, I don't care for Matthews). If I want to listen to "the news" all I care about is that the person giving it knows how to read and pronounce words and names correctly. Usually it's the content or writing that is suspect, and the reader, let's face it, usually doesn't have much to do with those things.
All that said, I have to agree with pretty much everything you said. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:28:09
Artie Lange Walks Off Howard Stern, Possibly For Good
That was just weird. You know these guys all make a ton of money, and to so stupidly not appreciate that fact and throw it away over something so petty is mind-boggling. Jeez--How do I apply for the job. I can guarantee I won't attack my "assistant," on or off the air. posted 04/11/2008 at 16:47:04
American Idol "Shout to the Lord" Controversy and Results
Why can't we get rid of ALL the garbage on tv, including the RELIGIOUS garbage? posted 04/11/2008 at 17:37:55
Randi Rhodes Blames Air America's New Owners On Larry King: "This Is Really About Them Wanting To Change My Contract"
Along with what "nylefty" says, I'd like to add that if your ("KINGS") reasoning were correct, than why haven't Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow, who have been critical of Hillary, and who support Obama (definitely in Rachel's case, and seemingly in Thom's case), been sacked? It's because the difference between them and Randi is that they know the meaning of CIVIL discourse. You don't have to be coarse, degrading and obscene to make a point when discussing politics. Moreover, they have humility, which Randi completely lacks. She's absolutely full of herself, and is the first and last person to keep reminding you of how great, intelligent and insightful she is. She's rude to her callers, even the ones who agree with her, and never lets anyone else get a word in edgewise. And what she bases her attitude on escapes me. As far as I've read, she holds no academic degree, and basically got to where she is by starting at the bottom and slowly working her way up in the radio biz from being a volunteer country music jockey. Both Thom & Rachel are established academics and intellects (Rachel a Rhodes Scholar) and their shows are pleasant and entertaining, as well as enlightening. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:06:22
Obama's "Big Tent" Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California
Oh hell--This IS silly. But a lot of you Obamabots are going to get disallusioned and hurt feelings when reality sets in, one way or another, anyway. What's sillier is no matter what a post is about, you people find a way to turn it around and take a mean-spirited jab at Hillary. Jeez--This guy's beef has NOTHING to do with Hillary, yet I read "like Hillary feels that she is owed the presidency." What's WITH you? You've allowed yourselves to be so manipulated by the media and the Obama campaign that you have a consuming hatred for a woman who hasn't done much (if anything) to hurt our country (Yes, she voted for force against Iraq, but so did 80% of the Senate, including most of the others who ran for president, and most of those, like Kerry, who now endorse Obama). You nonetheless believe she's linked to every ill of human society. If you don't like her, fine--support Obama--but that doesn't mean you have to constantly insult her. It only serves to make your "movement" appear hateful. Even as a Clinton supporter, I can see that Hillary's campaign is slowly self-destructing. You should take the high road, and let her campaign unravel on its own. You otherwise risk turning more of her supporters against your candidate come November. God forbid they should vote for McCain, but just as bad would be for them to leave their ballots blank. posted 04/10/2008 at 18:44:01
The Pride of the Clintons
You know, I don't care for Barack Obama as a candidate for president. I don't think he is qualified for the job and I don't like many of his positions on issues or how he would handle them. I openly and gladly admit that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. But I would never, NEVER question or ridicule Senator Obama's or his family members' love for or pride in each other. You've all reached a new low. posted 04/09/2008 at 16:33:57
Lanny Davis: Obama's Wright Problem
Prison record? Show us exactly what his "prison" record is--what he was convicted of, where he served his time, how much he got--Then PERHAPS it MIGHT be relevant here. Lanny is an EXTREMELY successful civil attorney. He graduated from Yale Law and Yale undergrad. Without a pardon, it is next to impossible to be licensed to practice law in any U.S. jurisdiction with a felony conviction. Most ABA accredited law schools (of which, Yale is definitely one of the best) will not even admit an applicant with a felony record. For all we know, Lanny was convicted of "inciting a riot" for participating in a civil rights march, and served a day in county lockup. Unless you can show he was convicted of Murder, Rape, or perhaps election fraud, I don't think his "prison record" means squat.
I'd be more concerned if he were a Pakistan lobbyist AFTER 9/11 than BEFORE.
I personally find the Lieberman support problematic, but he IS a "longtime friend"---Kind of like Wright being Obama's longtime friend, advisor & mentor. It can be difficult casting off someone you think you know as a friend when it turns out they are an a-hole.
I do like Lanny's son, the CBS basketball announcer guy. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:50:48
I'd be more concerned if he were a Pakistan lobbyist AFTER 9/11 than BEFORE.
I personally find the Lieberman support problematic, but he IS a "longtime friend"---Kind of like Wright being Obama's longtime friend, advisor & mentor. It can be difficult casting off someone you think you know as a friend when it turns out they are an a-hole.
I do like Lanny's son, the CBS basketball announcer guy. posted 04/09/2008 at 14:50:48
Bill Clinton Urged Spielberg Not To Boycott Olympic Ceremony
Do any of you Obamidiots actually know how to read? Hillary made her statement YESTERDAY. Bill advised Spielberg in 2007, when the situation in Tibet wasn't as inflamed as it is today. Of COURSE things have been bad in Tibet since China invaded in '51, we all get that. But compared to today, Tibet was relatively peaceful a year ago. HuffPo is trying to make it look like the Clintons are being two-faced by doing these things at the same time, but that's just not true and it is extremely disingenuous--no, outright dishonest of HuffPo to present it that way. If you want to hate the Clintons--fine--Knock yerself out. But don't be duped and do it based on this issue. posted 04/08/2008 at 17:50:17
Katie Knows What You're Thinking
Oh come on. You are a victim of selective reading or understanding. Of course he never actually demanded an "apology." I was using hyperbole to make a point. Harry has definitely at least implied that he wants some kind of confession or admission of guilt. Perhaps he'll weigh in on this, but I would be surprised if he denied that, having read many, if not all of his posts on the levee subject. At the very least, if he can't get the Corps to admit they are totally responsible for every ill related to Katrina, he wants the entire rest of the world to place absolute guilt on the Corps. In my opinion, he is strident on this issue to the point of absurdity. Despite all the suffering of New Orleans, his position is at odds with how civil disputes in most cases work. In any case where someone has been injured, there will almost always be some level of disagreement as to degree of liability. As a mostly uninvolved observer, I agree that the Corps was partially at fault--I just disagree that they were TOTALLY at fault. The implication based on that that I'm uninformed or incapable of understanding the facts is insulting.
HARRY SUGGESTS: At this point, you really should read at least the executive summaries of the three reports I've cited before weighing in on the relative importance of the Corps' mis- and malfeasance. Apology? Not necessary. Responsibility, and compensation? Absolutely.
As to "every ill related to Katrina"? A grotesque overstatement of the conclusions of the reports, upon which I rely for my opinion. Those "ills" would include multiple failures of the response mechanism, for which other officials, state, local, but primarily federal, are responsible. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:49:42
HARRY SUGGESTS: At this point, you really should read at least the executive summaries of the three reports I've cited before weighing in on the relative importance of the Corps' mis- and malfeasance. Apology? Not necessary. Responsibility, and compensation? Absolutely.
As to "every ill related to Katrina"? A grotesque overstatement of the conclusions of the reports, upon which I rely for my opinion. Those "ills" would include multiple failures of the response mechanism, for which other officials, state, local, but primarily federal, are responsible. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:49:42
"In the words of Dr. Bob Bea, of UC Berkeley, absent the catastrophic failure of the levee "system", the worst that storm would have perpetrated on New Orleans would have been 'wet ankles'. "
I've seen you cite Dr. Bea numerous times. I am admittedly not as well-read on the levee system as you (and just because it didn't work or wasn't completed or you don't like it, Harry, doesn't mean it's not a system, so putting "system" in quotes just seems . . . strange), but is he the only academic who's weighed in on the issue? Does the Corp of Engineers not have any "experts" with equally impressive academic qualifications who happen to disagree with Dr. Bea on any of his conclusions, or is he, in your "expert opinion," the final word on everything Katrina-related? Having participated in numerous "wars of experts" in both Criminal and Civil cases, I am always suspicious when only one side is presented as fact. I understand you are an advocate and your goal is to get public opinion on your side, but to me, it appears disingenuous.
HARRY SUGGESTS: Apparently, you have't read as many of my posts as you think. With great regularity, I cite the ILIT report (which Drs. Bob Bea and Ray Seed co-led out of UC Berkeley) and the Team Louisiana report, out of LSU, both of which severely criticized the Corps' design and construction of the "system"--which, btw, is in quotes because the Corps' own report called it "a system i name only". And yes, the Corps has experts, whom it has paid, and who come to conclusions--surprise!--more favorable to the Corps. The authors of the reports cited above--at least the UCBerkeley one--donated their time. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:34:43
I've seen you cite Dr. Bea numerous times. I am admittedly not as well-read on the levee system as you (and just because it didn't work or wasn't completed or you don't like it, Harry, doesn't mean it's not a system, so putting "system" in quotes just seems . . . strange), but is he the only academic who's weighed in on the issue? Does the Corp of Engineers not have any "experts" with equally impressive academic qualifications who happen to disagree with Dr. Bea on any of his conclusions, or is he, in your "expert opinion," the final word on everything Katrina-related? Having participated in numerous "wars of experts" in both Criminal and Civil cases, I am always suspicious when only one side is presented as fact. I understand you are an advocate and your goal is to get public opinion on your side, but to me, it appears disingenuous.
HARRY SUGGESTS: Apparently, you have't read as many of my posts as you think. With great regularity, I cite the ILIT report (which Drs. Bob Bea and Ray Seed co-led out of UC Berkeley) and the Team Louisiana report, out of LSU, both of which severely criticized the Corps' design and construction of the "system"--which, btw, is in quotes because the Corps' own report called it "a system i name only". And yes, the Corps has experts, whom it has paid, and who come to conclusions--surprise!--more favorable to the Corps. The authors of the reports cited above--at least the UCBerkeley one--donated their time. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:34:43
(cont.) and 3. To a lot of people, it seems almost bizarre the way you've made Katie Couric the lightning rod for your ire with the mainstream media. I get that you would argue that she is the poster child for all that is wrong with the msm, but jeez--she's just a news READER. She's not the Les Moonves (sp?). At least spread it around a bit more fairly. The off-air satellite feed tapes are taking it over the top. posted 04/09/2008 at 17:17:21
You don't have to use the specific words "devil" or "idiot" to belittle people who disagree with you. You can instead use phrases like "I find it . . . shameful that the the rest of the nation--you, apparently, included--[don't know what happened in N.O.]" or "you apparently get your news from the Anderson Coopers and Katie Courics of the world" or "So maybe you don't get the point." Those are just relatively mild examples of your dismissive tone to me on this page. I could cull countless others from this and your other posts, some with a tone much worse. You constantly argue your point on the Katrina issue as though no one with a rational mind could possiby disagree. I'm a trial lawyer by trade, Mr. Shearer. I understand adversarial discourse probably better than most. The points that YOU apparently "don't get" are 1. I obviously don't just rely on television news (I read HuffPo and specifically YOUR posts, for example, or didn't you notice?); 2. Just because someone disagrees with your near outrageous stridency, it doesn't mean that they disagree with your entire position (Believe it or not, I understand and to a point agree with what you've said about the levees--I just think you're being unrealistic in your apparent goals, and attacking some of the very people who could most help your cause--your tone is what is most objectionable.); posted 04/09/2008 at 17:16:45
You want, in your perfect universe, some sort of confession from everyone involved in the design and implementation of the levees, that they deliberately & maliciously foisted this travesty on an innocent and ususpecting population, an acceptance of complete responsibility and liability for all the lives & property lost, including a payment therefore, and a comprehensive apology to you personally. Anyone who disagrees with that you brand a devil or idiot (or both). I was a criminal prosecutor for 10 years. Even in cases where defendants were tried, convicted and sentenced, do you know how many times I ever saw such a confession or apology? Maybe once. 'Taint gonna happen. What is it that Katie Kouric did to you? Make you wait in the green room when you were promoting Godzilla, and then bump you in favor of a "more important" breaking story?
HARRY RESPONDS: Yeah, that's exactly what she did. You must be a mind-reader. You certainly don't read words, because never in the time I've been writing about New Orleans have I ever called a commenter either a devil or an idiot. Not even you. posted 04/08/2008 at 19:54:29
HARRY RESPONDS: Yeah, that's exactly what she did. You must be a mind-reader. You certainly don't read words, because never in the time I've been writing about New Orleans have I ever called a commenter either a devil or an idiot. Not even you. posted 04/08/2008 at 19:54:29
Harry--It's not that we don't know. It's all you've been harping on for the last two years, and at least speaking for myself (contrary to your snarky suggestion) I get the point. The truth is that we prioritize. Unlike you, who for whatever reason, have made this your life's crusade, we DON'T think it's the most important issue affecting the world or the United States at this time. I can think of several issues that are more "front burner" than New Orleans. Don't get me wrong--I sympathize with New Orleanians (?). I experienced a big hurricane (Iniki) first hand myself, and I am aware of the damage it can cause. It's 16 years later, and the Island of Kauai still isn't close to fully recovering. Katrina, incidentally, despite all your protestations WAS a big hurricane. Either you weren't there, or you just decided not to watch television that week, but the eyes of the world saw what was happening. I can say without equivocation that Katrina made Iniki look like a spring shower. I don't doubt that properly designed and maintained levees would have lessened the devastation. The fact remains that the system was in place for years without a breech, and it took Katrina to push the domino.
HARRY RESPONDS: That's the problem, you apparently get your news from the Anderson Coopers and Katie Courics of the world. Fact: according to the National Hurricane Centers final tally, Katrina at New Orleans was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 storm (unlike its intensity when it hit the Miss. Gulf Coast). That's lower than the levee system was rated to withstand. Fact: the levee "system" was not in place for years, it had not really been completed at the time of Katrina. You can argue with the conclusions of the three idependent investigations into the disaster if you like. So maybe you don't get the point...yet. posted 04/08/2008 at 19:53:59
HARRY RESPONDS: That's the problem, you apparently get your news from the Anderson Coopers and Katie Courics of the world. Fact: according to the National Hurricane Centers final tally, Katrina at New Orleans was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 storm (unlike its intensity when it hit the Miss. Gulf Coast). That's lower than the levee system was rated to withstand. Fact: the levee "system" was not in place for years, it had not really been completed at the time of Katrina. You can argue with the conclusions of the three idependent investigations into the disaster if you like. So maybe you don't get the point...yet. posted 04/08/2008 at 19:53:59
(cont.) I used to think that Harry was one of the rare, sharp-witted people in the generally dim-witted world of showbiz. I was proud to cite him as a fellow alum of my alma mater. Now I just think he is a terribly mean person with an obsessively large chip on his shoulder about the Army Corps of Engineers & the New Orleans levee system (but apparently not so much about FEMA's response to Katrina, or any of the other post-Katrina screw ups, or even Katrina itself, for that matter). Oh, and now he has it out for the Dem. Party because they wouldn't hold their convention in N.O. I don't know what slight he thinks Katie Couric perpetrated him, but whatever it was, he seems now to be concentrating the same venom on her. I don't think she's any better or worse than any other network newsperson, but it's clear he's singling her out and joining in on the sexist pile-on.
HARRY RESPONDS: Let's take these in reverse order. I'm not piling on, I didn't force Howard Kurtz to interview her or her to be interviewed; I just found the quotes sadly revealing. There's no "chip" on my "shoulder" about the Army Corps: the entire City of New Orleans knows what happened and why, and I find it close to shameful that the rest of the nation--you, apparently, included--doesn't. There was plenty of outrage about FEMA's response, though not nearly as much to FEMA's attempt to cover up the CDC's toxicology expert's opinion that the formaldehyde fumes in the trailers represented a health risk to the inhabitants. "Katrina itself"? In the words of Dr. Bob Bea, of UC Berkeley, absent the catastrophic failure of the levee "system", the worst that storm would have perpetrated on New Orleans would have been "wet ankles". posted 04/08/2008 at 18:26:28
HARRY RESPONDS: Let's take these in reverse order. I'm not piling on, I didn't force Howard Kurtz to interview her or her to be interviewed; I just found the quotes sadly revealing. There's no "chip" on my "shoulder" about the Army Corps: the entire City of New Orleans knows what happened and why, and I find it close to shameful that the rest of the nation--you, apparently, included--doesn't. There was plenty of outrage about FEMA's response, though not nearly as much to FEMA's attempt to cover up the CDC's toxicology expert's opinion that the formaldehyde fumes in the trailers represented a health risk to the inhabitants. "Katrina itself"? In the words of Dr. Bob Bea, of UC Berkeley, absent the catastrophic failure of the levee "system", the worst that storm would have perpetrated on New Orleans would have been "wet ankles". posted 04/08/2008 at 18:26:28
Who Can Beat McCain?
"beckinc":
Sounds like you predate me a bit--I wasn't able to vote until the '70s, although I come from a staunchly Democratic family, was aware at an early age of political and liberal issues, and proudly am able to say that I shook Bobby Kennedy's hand a day or two before he was taken from us.
No offense intended, but I think that your memory of "what an anti-establishment movement was able to accomplish" and what actually occurred are at odds. A lot of hurt came out of the sixties (and seventies) that is forgotten in favor of "flower power" and "peace." Many survived it, and unfortunately, many did not. And as a nation, we still haven't learned a lot of the lessons of the sixties--Look at the Iraq War, for example.
The idea of a president surrounding himself "with the most brilliant available" also is something of a canard. JFK supposedly did that, and the result was Vietnam, and not much accomplished in his short presidency. Carter was similar in that regard, although I believe he was mostly a victim of circumstance and the inheritor of the Nixon/Ford-created mess. I hope Obama, if he wins, isn't so unfortunate--consider the mess he'll inherit . . .
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out . . . posted 04/07/2008 at 18:35:11
Sounds like you predate me a bit--I wasn't able to vote until the '70s, although I come from a staunchly Democratic family, was aware at an early age of political and liberal issues, and proudly am able to say that I shook Bobby Kennedy's hand a day or two before he was taken from us.
No offense intended, but I think that your memory of "what an anti-establishment movement was able to accomplish" and what actually occurred are at odds. A lot of hurt came out of the sixties (and seventies) that is forgotten in favor of "flower power" and "peace." Many survived it, and unfortunately, many did not. And as a nation, we still haven't learned a lot of the lessons of the sixties--Look at the Iraq War, for example.
The idea of a president surrounding himself "with the most brilliant available" also is something of a canard. JFK supposedly did that, and the result was Vietnam, and not much accomplished in his short presidency. Carter was similar in that regard, although I believe he was mostly a victim of circumstance and the inheritor of the Nixon/Ford-created mess. I hope Obama, if he wins, isn't so unfortunate--consider the mess he'll inherit . . .
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out . . . posted 04/07/2008 at 18:35:11
"beckinc":
When I read posts like yours, it makes me shudder for the future of both our country and party. You are obviously consumed with a searing, irrational hatred for the Clintons. What's worse is that you've placed absolutely all your eggs in the Obama basket, and are setting yourself (and your fellow Obama supporters as well) up for an incredible letdown when he falters (and he will falter at some point). What is going to happen with all these "newly inspired voters who previously never cared much about politics" when it becomes apparent that their savior is a mere human? Are they all going to become disenchanted and never dare to participate again for fear of being disappointed by their candidate or the system? "Obama is our only hope?" Jeez--just listen to yourself. Even is Obama does win, to think he will be able to rule by caveat is naive and immature. Bill Clinton, with an initially Democrat-controlled Congress, couldn't do many of the things he promised in '92, and so even he learned the hard way. For all the talk of "a new kind of politics," no matter who wins the White House this year, there are going to be a lot of pissed off politicians and voters who supported someone else, and we're still going to be living in a greatly divided country. posted 04/07/2008 at 17:04:01
When I read posts like yours, it makes me shudder for the future of both our country and party. You are obviously consumed with a searing, irrational hatred for the Clintons. What's worse is that you've placed absolutely all your eggs in the Obama basket, and are setting yourself (and your fellow Obama supporters as well) up for an incredible letdown when he falters (and he will falter at some point). What is going to happen with all these "newly inspired voters who previously never cared much about politics" when it becomes apparent that their savior is a mere human? Are they all going to become disenchanted and never dare to participate again for fear of being disappointed by their candidate or the system? "Obama is our only hope?" Jeez--just listen to yourself. Even is Obama does win, to think he will be able to rule by caveat is naive and immature. Bill Clinton, with an initially Democrat-controlled Congress, couldn't do many of the things he promised in '92, and so even he learned the hard way. For all the talk of "a new kind of politics," no matter who wins the White House this year, there are going to be a lot of pissed off politicians and voters who supported someone else, and we're still going to be living in a greatly divided country. posted 04/07/2008 at 17:04:01
Not Until the Fat Lady Sings
Don't insult your intelligence? Let's see . . . You lived in Florida. The DNC decided to punish the REPUBLICAN Florida Governor and Legislature for pushing the DEMOCRATIC primary forward. All over the national mainstream media (BEFORE the primary) were pundits who were speculating that the DNC would probably backtrack at some point and seat Florida's delegates (I saw and read plenty--enough that I made note of it and thought at the time that were I a Floridian, I would vote despite the DNC's threat). And yet you made the decision not to cast your vote. That Florida primary, incidentally, set records for high voter turnout. I don't think anyone needs to insult your intelligence. You've insulted it plenty on your own. Incidentally, based on that voter turnout, despite your and Randi Rhodes' unfounded claims, people like you, who didn't vote for the reason you gave, are in an infinitesimally small minority. Everyone followed all the rules, and Hillary still won Florida overwhelmingly, and the idiots of the Party want to blackball the innocent Florida voters to ensure that the Obama fix will still be in. You can piss & moan all you want, but that's a fact. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:01:07
(cont.) Calling a fellow party member, even one who is an opponent a "liar" is counterproductive and classless. And Obama doesn't hold the patent on honesty. His various episodes of playing fast & loose with the truth are well-documented. And attacking Hillary's "35 years of experience" is just plain stupid. Why not try actually looking into her resume. She graduated Yale Law in 1972. She's been a working attorney, a professional, and a public servant ever since. I notice now that the official Obama campaign line is not that her 35 years experience is questionable but now it's her claim of 35 years of "public service." That's purely a matter of opinion. The same is true of Obama's claims of "public service," only his numbers are still way lower than hers, since he didn't graduate until 1991. The tactic of picking apart your opponent's claims of years of experience will definitely not work with McCain. I hope you know that. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:43:37
You know what? The problem is NOT that Hillary is a "flawed" candidate. Of course she is. No one is denying that she has flaws. The problem is that she is not the ONLY flawed candidate. You guys talk like she is Satan him(her)self, and your candidate is the second coming, withour ANY flaws. Grow up. I don't know who you are, but you sound like you're a naive 18 year old who has never lived through a presidential election as an adult before. "One person has shown strength and dignity in all those regards." Sheesh--Give us a break. Every presidential candidate has some imperfections, and Obama has plenty. Disregarding them or pretending they don't exist does not in fact make them go away (although the Republicans, despite all documented evidence otherwise, still like to believe that Reagan could do no wrong). It's infantile and irritating the way you persist in putting Obama on an unrealistic pedestal. It's especially irritating the way that, despite his campaign allegedly being built around the idea of "a new kind of politics--not the 'dirty' 'old' politics," Obama allows his supporters (like you), his surrogates, and his campaign personnel to viciously attack Hillary at every turn. Get a grip. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:42:53
Truth is the First Casualty. Logic is the Second. The Democratic Party is the Third.
Typically, Obama supporters fail to recognize that Rendell was purposely making an ironic observation. The Obama fix is in with the wider mainstream media. There is a rule that it's perfectly okay to run with any negative story about Hillary, in fact run it into the ground. Despite her already admitting (what? 2 weeks ago?) that her version of the events on the Tuzla tarmac were at odds with what really happened, we're STILL seeing stories citing "proof" that she embellished the story. 2 days ago was the story that the pilot of her plane issued a statement contradicting her, and then yesterday, the NY Post published a story that they had tracked down the little Bosnia poet girl and got a statement from HER--now a 20-year old medical student, contradicting Hillary. OKAY--I think we all get it.
But with Obama, the rule is that any negative story about him is to be downplayed. He admits that his original claim that he had never been present or heard when Rev. Wright made his inflammatory, racist and anti-American comments was untrue. Now he says he WAS present, but that he doesn't agree with Wright, although he "won't disown" him. I don't see any news organization running THAT story into the ground. Obama's untruths are constantly forgiven & forgotten, or simply explained away. Double standard, double standard, DOUBLE STANDARD. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:19:40
But with Obama, the rule is that any negative story about him is to be downplayed. He admits that his original claim that he had never been present or heard when Rev. Wright made his inflammatory, racist and anti-American comments was untrue. Now he says he WAS present, but that he doesn't agree with Wright, although he "won't disown" him. I don't see any news organization running THAT story into the ground. Obama's untruths are constantly forgiven & forgotten, or simply explained away. Double standard, double standard, DOUBLE STANDARD. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:19:40
Didn't Obama also vote for that bankruptcy bill? posted 04/01/2008 at 17:06:03
Two Senior Advisors: We'll Tell Hillary To Resign If She Loses Indiana
David Brock, the author of the piece, has been a reformed FORMER right-wing attack man for several years now. He has thoroughly renounced the work he did in the early 90s for R.M. Scaife and the Arkansas project, and regrets the negative and untruthful attacks he perpetrated against the Clintons and Anita Hill. He is now the founder and CEO of Media Matters for America (mediamatters.org), which has widely (and probably incorrectly) been alleged to be a pro-Hillary website. Your citing of his article is horribly and misleadingly dated.
His Bio: David Brock is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy (Crown, May 2004). In his preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown, March 2002), a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir, he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock was the recipient of the New Democrat Network's first award for political entrepreneurship. He currently serves on the board of The Progressive Legislative Action Network, an organization created to support progressive state legislators. He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America. posted 03/31/2008 at 20:02:16
His Bio: David Brock is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy (Crown, May 2004). In his preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown, March 2002), a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir, he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock was the recipient of the New Democrat Network's first award for political entrepreneurship. He currently serves on the board of The Progressive Legislative Action Network, an organization created to support progressive state legislators. He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America. posted 03/31/2008 at 20:02:16
Hooked on Hillary
Okay--I don't have time to enumerate several instances where Obama has stretched the truth, but they are documented. There is an Eric Alterman article in this week's Newsweek, that, although ironically is anti-Hillary, also talks about Obama's and other politicians' untruths. But considering its relative contemporaneity, how about this one?--When the Rev. Wright story first broke, Obama was quick to jump to his defense and declared that he (Obama) had never heard Wright make such comments, and if/when such comments had been included in a Wright sermon, he (Obama) certainly had not been present. Approximately one week later, when Obama gave his mighty speech about race in America, he changed his tune to admit that yes, he HAD been present and HAD heard the sermons in question, but that he didn't agree with Wright's sentiments, and moreover, he would not "disown" the reverend any more than he would his white grandma. Now why is it that the media did not run with THAT story the way they made a big deal about Hillary's insignificant comments about her airport landing while on an otherwise significant goodwill mission? Why hasn't the media run THAT story into the ground? Obama essentially admitted that he had lied about his relationship with his clergyman, a man who Obama himself claims has had a profound impact on his life and beliefs, and who Obama has called his "best friend." It's clear that there IS a double standard being applied posted 04/02/2008 at 03:04:48
"Houston54":
I get that you're a Republican and that defines who you give credence to, but why in the world would you possibly think that Nora Efron, or any of the vast majority of readers of a Progressive site, who are presumably mostly progressive themselves, give a rat's ass about what William Safire ever had to say? Why don't you just include a quote from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity while you're at it? What gets me about this whole hulabaloo concerning the Tuzla story is that no one, apparently even Nora Efron, has given any thought whatsoever to to the actual substance of Hillary's trip to Bosnia. She did several things there infinitely more important than just land in her plane at the airport, whether or not there was sniper fire. I don't care whether she got the details correct or even embellished the circumstances of her arrival. I've been on several commercial flights where the tubulence or landing was so severe that I was sure the plane was gonna crash. Who cares? The other details of my trips are much more interesting. All politicians embellish stories to make themselves look a little more courageous, virtuous, whatever--even Obama. I've read articles that enumerate his tall tales and exaggerations. Some are pointless, some are a bit more important. Unlike the "Great Communicator," I haven't heard Democrats falsely claiming that they helped liberate Nazi death camps while they were safe in Hollywood making army training films. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:18:25
I get that you're a Republican and that defines who you give credence to, but why in the world would you possibly think that Nora Efron, or any of the vast majority of readers of a Progressive site, who are presumably mostly progressive themselves, give a rat's ass about what William Safire ever had to say? Why don't you just include a quote from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity while you're at it? What gets me about this whole hulabaloo concerning the Tuzla story is that no one, apparently even Nora Efron, has given any thought whatsoever to to the actual substance of Hillary's trip to Bosnia. She did several things there infinitely more important than just land in her plane at the airport, whether or not there was sniper fire. I don't care whether she got the details correct or even embellished the circumstances of her arrival. I've been on several commercial flights where the tubulence or landing was so severe that I was sure the plane was gonna crash. Who cares? The other details of my trips are much more interesting. All politicians embellish stories to make themselves look a little more courageous, virtuous, whatever--even Obama. I've read articles that enumerate his tall tales and exaggerations. Some are pointless, some are a bit more important. Unlike the "Great Communicator," I haven't heard Democrats falsely claiming that they helped liberate Nazi death camps while they were safe in Hollywood making army training films. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:18:25
Carville Unloads: Richardson Misled, Promised He'd Back Hillary
It's interesting that the Obama people don't believe in superdelegates voting their conscience when it means they will vote "against the will of their constituents" and vote for Hillary. Even Richardson himself said that superdelegates should be required to vote the way their state voted. But the Obama camp doesn't have any problem whatsoever when Richardson will vote as a superdelegate for Obama despite N. Mexico having been won by Hillary. Or when Sens. Kennedy & Kerry, and Gov. Patrick all will vote against the will of the people of Massachusetts (also won by Hillary) and vote as superdelegates for Obama. Only then is voting one's conscience okay. Hypocricy--blatant hypocricy. It would be interesting to find out exactly what Obama promised Richardson in exchange for his endorsement. Unfortunately, we probably will never know because unless Richardson is chosen as Obama's running mate, Obama will never get the opportunity to appoint Richardson to any other post because McCain will clean his clock. And that's assuming that Obama even wins the nomination, which certainly is not a done deal, despite what HuffPost and the corporate media want us to believe. posted 03/28/2008 at 07:56:12
Chris Dodd: This Race Must End
No, this process hasn't "illustrated that there are fewer of them (Clinton voters) than Obama voters." In fact, what this process has illustrated is that the Obama camp is so afraid that in fact there are more Clinton voters, that they have no problem whatsoever in denying Florida & Michigan (two hugely important states in the general election) and all the remaining primary states the right to voice their opinions on who the nominee should be. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign keeps touting the fact that they won small states like South Carolina, Iowa, etc., mostly all states that will go to the Republican candidate in November no matter what. Meanwhile, other than Illinois, Hillary has won not only all the big Democratic states, but also important big swing states like Florida and Ohio, and most probably will win Pennsylvania as well. It is crucial that the campaign be allowed to play out. If Obama wins legitimately, then fine. If you have confidence in your candidate, it shouldn't be a problem. If a large percentage of Democrats are simply told to stuff it however, without a true winner being determined democratically, then expect huge defections from the party. If you don't think it can happen, ask Carter, Mondale & Dukakis. Or look what happened to Gore and Kerry--Even if you believe Bush stole both elections, enough people who normally associate themselves with Democratic ideals still crossed over and voted for Bush to make it close in the first place. posted 03/28/2008 at 07:37:17
"Pimped Out" Resurfaces On MSNBC
This whole thing is stupid. I'm a Clinton supporter, and I stopped listening to Stephanie Miller a couple months ago because of her blatant anti-Hillary, pro-Obama slant, but this is still a non-issue. I certainly objected when Joe Schuster first said it, but this time, it was not said in any way, shape or form as a negative attack on the Clintons. In fact, it was an attempt to humorously reference the previous "scandal" and also make clear that Chelsea is NOT being "pimped out," and is under no obligation to answer questions from the media if she prefers not to, especially questions concerning her father's infidelity in the 90s. How gross and inappropriate for a "reporter" to ask a daughter about her parent's sex life in the first place. Stephanie didn't do anything wrong, and it was Dan Abrams who called more attention to the comment than was necessary. Let it go. I'm surprised that HuffPost, which wants to annoint Obama President without an election, would even publish a story about it. posted 03/28/2008 at 08:07:01
Telling Tales About Her First Lady Travels: Where and Why Did Hillary Exaggerate?
Why wasn't the original deliberate falsehood by Obama given the same scrutiny and character assassination treatment by the media that they gave to Hillary's story about the Tuzla airport? Her landing at the airport didn't even have anything to do with the real importance and purpose of the trip, so if she doesn't remember it accurately, or even if she has embellished it over the years, what difference does it make, except to nitpickers like you, who only wish ill upon her? And how can you say (or write) with a straight face that Obama merely attended Wright's church, and imply that other than that, he hardly knew the guy? Are you people kidding, or what? posted 03/28/2008 at 06:40:03
Hey Daniel--
What's amazing and disgusting is the absolute venom and bile that you people are piling on to Hillary Clinton, in this post and in your comments. You don't just dislike her, you don't just prefer another candidate, you don't just disagree with her--You people, from the tone of your words, absolutely hate her with a passion not seen since Hitler was alive and kicking. You give the horrible impression that you won't be satisfied until she and Bill are dead and rotting in their graves, which you will gleefully urinate on. Get a grip! She is not, despite what visions you've formed in your brain, the Antichrist.
And your recitation of the "facts" surrounding Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright leaves a lot out, to say the least. He didn't just attend the guy's church, as you imply. Wright officiated at Obama's wedding, he baptized both of Obama's daughters, Obama has acknowledged him as his "mentor" and his best friend. Wright inspired the title and general theme of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," and the list goes on. Obama himself has admitted that Wright's comments and sermons were abhorrent. Also, after initially claiming he hadn't been present when such comments were made by Wright during church sermons, Obama later changed his story and admitted that while yes, he had witnessed the sermons, he still could not "disown" Wright any more than he could disown his grandmother. posted 03/28/2008 at 06:38:48
What's amazing and disgusting is the absolute venom and bile that you people are piling on to Hillary Clinton, in this post and in your comments. You don't just dislike her, you don't just prefer another candidate, you don't just disagree with her--You people, from the tone of your words, absolutely hate her with a passion not seen since Hitler was alive and kicking. You give the horrible impression that you won't be satisfied until she and Bill are dead and rotting in their graves, which you will gleefully urinate on. Get a grip! She is not, despite what visions you've formed in your brain, the Antichrist.
And your recitation of the "facts" surrounding Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright leaves a lot out, to say the least. He didn't just attend the guy's church, as you imply. Wright officiated at Obama's wedding, he baptized both of Obama's daughters, Obama has acknowledged him as his "mentor" and his best friend. Wright inspired the title and general theme of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," and the list goes on. Obama himself has admitted that Wright's comments and sermons were abhorrent. Also, after initially claiming he hadn't been present when such comments were made by Wright during church sermons, Obama later changed his story and admitted that while yes, he had witnessed the sermons, he still could not "disown" Wright any more than he could disown his grandmother. posted 03/28/2008 at 06:38:48
Clinton Owes Obama An Apology
Keith--Grow up. Given what you claim to be your political accomplishments, you ought to know how American politics work. You imply that Hillary (and the other candidates, I guess) should all just agree that each other are all good patriotic Americans, all exceptionally qualified candidates, and they all should just say positive things about each other. What planet did you say you were from, again? If that's the way your world works, then why even have an election at all? We could just ordain Hillary, Barack and McCain CO-Presidents--maybe they could take turns on alternate months running the country.
I hate to break it to you, but the Clintons never needed the likes of you to defend them. Frankly, Obama doesn't either. If indeed you "worked in the Clinton White House" as you say, one has to wonder what it was you did. Whatever it was, it couldn't have required much in the way of political savvy. posted 03/26/2008 at 20:42:11
I hate to break it to you, but the Clintons never needed the likes of you to defend them. Frankly, Obama doesn't either. If indeed you "worked in the Clinton White House" as you say, one has to wonder what it was you did. Whatever it was, it couldn't have required much in the way of political savvy. posted 03/26/2008 at 20:42:11
Smears and Tears: How Obama's National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype
Even you, with your less than sincere comment implying that the only way Clinton can win the nomination would be for her to "steal" it, illustrates my point. You can't stand the idea that Clinton might manipulate the rules as they exist to pull out a win, but you obviously have no problem with Obama's disingenuous efforts to keep Michigan & Florida from holding legitimate second primaries because he fears he will lose those states, even though he far outpaces Clinton in funds and spending, and would not be disadvantaged in his ability or opportunity to actively campaign there. His campaign instead takes the low road of disenfranchising and therefore alienating the Democratic voters in two heavily populated and important general election states. Good for Obama and the New "Democracy" for the New Millinium! Now that's what I call "change!" posted 03/26/2008 at 19:32:22
Dear "CitizenE":
What I am sick of is the often repeated mantra that the Clintons have reduced this campaign "to a street fight," have "done...dirt," used "the cheapest form of Rovian smear," etc., without any facts to back up such claims.
I would invite you to enumerate what exactly, were the misrepresentations or untruths that you claim the Clintons used against Obama. Any time such accusations are leveled, they are accompanied by such phrases as, "Bill Clinton said, "_____," but what he really meant was, "_____," or the "hidden meaning" was, "______."
I challenge you to tell us exactly what dirty politics were leveled on Obama, and proof that whatever you claim they said or did was untrue or defamitory. Go ahead--write them out. I can guarantee that every claim of "Rovian attacks" can be answered with documentary evidence that the statements regarding Obama or his campaign were true. The fact is that the Obama camp can't deal with any news or statements about Obama that are anything but supportive. On the other hand, on a daily basis, despite their claim of "rising about gutter politics," the Obama campaign, aided by a willing newsmedia, engage in relentless personal and political attacks against Sen. Clinton. Absolute hypocricy is what it is. posted 03/26/2008 at 19:31:54
What I am sick of is the often repeated mantra that the Clintons have reduced this campaign "to a street fight," have "done...dirt," used "the cheapest form of Rovian smear," etc., without any facts to back up such claims.
I would invite you to enumerate what exactly, were the misrepresentations or untruths that you claim the Clintons used against Obama. Any time such accusations are leveled, they are accompanied by such phrases as, "Bill Clinton said, "_____," but what he really meant was, "_____," or the "hidden meaning" was, "______."
I challenge you to tell us exactly what dirty politics were leveled on Obama, and proof that whatever you claim they said or did was untrue or defamitory. Go ahead--write them out. I can guarantee that every claim of "Rovian attacks" can be answered with documentary evidence that the statements regarding Obama or his campaign were true. The fact is that the Obama camp can't deal with any news or statements about Obama that are anything but supportive. On the other hand, on a daily basis, despite their claim of "rising about gutter politics," the Obama campaign, aided by a willing newsmedia, engage in relentless personal and political attacks against Sen. Clinton. Absolute hypocricy is what it is. posted 03/26/2008 at 19:31:54
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn't Hillary Clinton gracefully concede...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
NEW UPDATE BELOW As violence in Iraq continues -- clashes today left 11 dead and 19 injured -- President...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself,...