May 13, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
timm0
Recent comments by this user
Obama Pro-Coal Ad Panders To Kentucky Voters
You copied my comment but apparently didn't read it. The article was about a campaign ad. My comment spoke specifically about "ads." I'm not discussing press coverage or stump speeches because they don't hit as many people as broadcast ads. We're all well aware of the "serious media's" hard-on for stupid nonsense - but that's not cogent to my point. posted 05/13/2008 at 08:05:25
Tell that to the people who've had their properties destroyed by environmental impacts of strip mining and water pollution near the sites of mines.
But the bottom line is that coal is a finite resource - let's not get too worked up over nor too deeply vested into a temporary solution. The best solutions are all those that are focused on renewable resources. posted 05/13/2008 at 08:03:01
But the bottom line is that coal is a finite resource - let's not get too worked up over nor too deeply vested into a temporary solution. The best solutions are all those that are focused on renewable resources. posted 05/13/2008 at 08:03:01
OK, I'll buy into the argument that you need to pacify some elements of the MSM - but just for the sake of argument....
If Obama is going to throw some token issue at the voters, why pick this issue which is really not a very sound energy policy? Couldn't he have thrown some other bone? Hell, here in PA, coal is one of - if not THE - largest industry in the state.... we never heard boo about clean coal in his ads.
My point is, there are so many genuine issues out there that effect KY residents, why pick this? posted 05/12/2008 at 10:59:30
If Obama is going to throw some token issue at the voters, why pick this issue which is really not a very sound energy policy? Couldn't he have thrown some other bone? Hell, here in PA, coal is one of - if not THE - largest industry in the state.... we never heard boo about clean coal in his ads.
My point is, there are so many genuine issues out there that effect KY residents, why pick this? posted 05/12/2008 at 10:59:30
Yes, he's going to lose... which makes me all the more irritated at him pushing for "clean coal." It was a great idea to pursue, but the research indicates the energy needed to mine and clean the coal and then clean up after the mining makes it a bad deal. So why sell out when there's no one who will really vote for you anyway?!?!
Very disappointing. posted 05/12/2008 at 10:01:59
Very disappointing. posted 05/12/2008 at 10:01:59
Senate Dems Counter-Pander
Dead bang on.
I think a "windfall profit tax" is a cop-out though. The industry is a collusive gang of crooks. They should be "fined" for price gouging and manipulating the energy market - not "taxed." posted 05/08/2008 at 00:17:17
I think a "windfall profit tax" is a cop-out though. The industry is a collusive gang of crooks. They should be "fined" for price gouging and manipulating the energy market - not "taxed." posted 05/08/2008 at 00:17:17
Hillary Vows To Ignore "Elite Math" In Primary Race
Yes, that is a good one.
However, I have a hard time being amused by her stupidity. She's in full neocon mode... math as emotion... I am so utterly disgusted by everything about her it's hard to contain myself. I thought only bush could respond in exactly the most wrong, ugly way... I was wrong. posted 05/05/2008 at 13:16:45
However, I have a hard time being amused by her stupidity. She's in full neocon mode... math as emotion... I am so utterly disgusted by everything about her it's hard to contain myself. I thought only bush could respond in exactly the most wrong, ugly way... I was wrong. posted 05/05/2008 at 13:16:45
What Will A Clinton "Victory" Feel Like?
Total foolishness.
"Clinton-bashing" hasn't turned Obama supporters against clinton - the woman and her campaign's ACTIONS have turned all sentient beings against clinton.
This is as patently absurd a belief as thinking that an article of clothing makes a severely overweight person look "fat"... it's really not the clothes, ok... it's the excessive size of the person wearing the clothes that's the issue. posted 05/03/2008 at 12:06:33
"Clinton-bashing" hasn't turned Obama supporters against clinton - the woman and her campaign's ACTIONS have turned all sentient beings against clinton.
This is as patently absurd a belief as thinking that an article of clothing makes a severely overweight person look "fat"... it's really not the clothes, ok... it's the excessive size of the person wearing the clothes that's the issue. posted 05/03/2008 at 12:06:33
Former DNC Chairs: Hillary Would Beat McCain Today -- Obama Wouldn't
If she were anything more than the shrill piece of human filth that she is, she'd have thrown open the doors of the courtroom and testified with courage and determination. Weaseling out of depositions is what bush and neocons do, and hence, yet another action that defines her character to be of the same stuff as cheney, et. al. People who are innocent or have faith in their innocence do the right thing... they testify and don't duck it. To me, this is a guilty plea from her. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:57:08
Wow, what a fascinating collection of campaign disciples, old-school party hacks, outright failures ("Kiss of Death" McAuliffe), and people I've never heard of. When you see a blithering endorsement from a group like that whose most credible member is deceased, you know the desperation is peaking and heading off the charts.
This just in: "Talyor Marsh says she has more popular votes than Obama!"
Zoinks! Who coulda seen THAT coming!?! posted 05/02/2008 at 19:13:00
This just in: "Talyor Marsh says she has more popular votes than Obama!"
Zoinks! Who coulda seen THAT coming!?! posted 05/02/2008 at 19:13:00
An Army of Women
Uh, would you like to quote and name the "swaths of the press" calling for hillary to leave the race? Do you count editorial departments who endorse Obama as calling for her concession? Who is "the press" that has been "relentlessly" pushing for her to leave? If it's relentless, I'm sure you can post more than 1 name... so why don't you? Would 'men-are-superior.com' be considered the press?
Your post is 100%, unadulterated garbage. Of the unapologetic, unabashed, illogical, sexist hillary-backing posts, this stands out as one of the most dishonest and embarrassing. Anyone with their eyes even just opened to slit size can see that the press is feasting on her presence in this race. They might actually have to listen to a mccain speech and actually report on his senility if she were to drop out! Heaven forbid! The longer she stays in, the more "the press" gets to "report" on Rev. Wright, momentum, what super delegates are, what the score is, who's going to gaffe, who can't work a friggin' coffee machine, etc., etc. WAKE UP! posted 05/02/2008 at 15:08:02
Your post is 100%, unadulterated garbage. Of the unapologetic, unabashed, illogical, sexist hillary-backing posts, this stands out as one of the most dishonest and embarrassing. Anyone with their eyes even just opened to slit size can see that the press is feasting on her presence in this race. They might actually have to listen to a mccain speech and actually report on his senility if she were to drop out! Heaven forbid! The longer she stays in, the more "the press" gets to "report" on Rev. Wright, momentum, what super delegates are, what the score is, who's going to gaffe, who can't work a friggin' coffee machine, etc., etc. WAKE UP! posted 05/02/2008 at 15:08:02
Poll: Majority Think Obama Denounced Wright For Political Convenience
Certainly after absorbing your breathtaking assessment of the situation, who could possibly argue that you are not a true genius!?
Obama defended the guy not 3 or 4 weeks ago while he laid out a sweeping, insightful state-of-the-union-like speech on race relations in this country. Now a clinton operative takes the "angry black man" on a media blitz, showcase Wright claiming he's coming after Obama, and the logical conclusion is that an Obama repudiation of this nonsense is just expedient. I wouldn't expect someone as smart as YOU, northeast, to muddle through such annoying facts in the construction of your astoundingly brilliant treatise on the subject. Your opinion is more solid, I'm sure. posted 05/02/2008 at 11:56:21
Obama defended the guy not 3 or 4 weeks ago while he laid out a sweeping, insightful state-of-the-union-like speech on race relations in this country. Now a clinton operative takes the "angry black man" on a media blitz, showcase Wright claiming he's coming after Obama, and the logical conclusion is that an Obama repudiation of this nonsense is just expedient. I wouldn't expect someone as smart as YOU, northeast, to muddle through such annoying facts in the construction of your astoundingly brilliant treatise on the subject. Your opinion is more solid, I'm sure. posted 05/02/2008 at 11:56:21
The After-Math: Obama Will Be Less Than 100 Delegates from the Nomination
Paul, please allow me to answer on MzTexas's behalf using the same vacuous reasoning that hillary supporters are blessed with when it comes to this subject.
1). Of course not - because he won. This election is different... because it just is.
2). Because Obama will lose all the big states. California, NY, PA - all the states that have voted Dem over the last few elections will break for mccain... because they just will.
3). Richardson does not have a vagina. The voters in Florida and Michigan - in concert with everyone who agrees with me - demand a candidate of the correct gender.
How'd I do? posted 05/02/2008 at 11:40:49
1). Of course not - because he won. This election is different... because it just is.
2). Because Obama will lose all the big states. California, NY, PA - all the states that have voted Dem over the last few elections will break for mccain... because they just will.
3). Richardson does not have a vagina. The voters in Florida and Michigan - in concert with everyone who agrees with me - demand a candidate of the correct gender.
How'd I do? posted 05/02/2008 at 11:40:49
"Framing the electability argument to polls alone is intellectually dishonest, even though Obama has always over polled and Clinton likely wins the general Electoral College and Obama likely loses against McCain."
Funny.... you simultaneously fling accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" like a monkey hurling feces while perpetuating your own intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the premise of bubba's poll-based arguments being disproved by actual history.
I agree that the SDs should vote as they see fit without coercion. However, when they speak up and the total quantity of endorsing SDs and delegates for Obama goes beyond 2,025, will you post comments here and elsewhere that hillary should concede? If not, at what number should she concede? Or do you encourage her to continue her "campaign" through the convention? posted 05/02/2008 at 09:32:37
Funny.... you simultaneously fling accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" like a monkey hurling feces while perpetuating your own intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the premise of bubba's poll-based arguments being disproved by actual history.
I agree that the SDs should vote as they see fit without coercion. However, when they speak up and the total quantity of endorsing SDs and delegates for Obama goes beyond 2,025, will you post comments here and elsewhere that hillary should concede? If not, at what number should she concede? Or do you encourage her to continue her "campaign" through the convention? posted 05/02/2008 at 09:32:37
Clinton: Base "Broader And Deeper" Than Obama's
There is a special place in hell for clinton and i've moved from "dislike" to "rabid hatred" based on her character in this campaign. This 'broader base' and other illogical crap is just a constant middle finger to all of us who have been "blessed" with the gift of simple, rational thought capacity.
That said, the point the hag was trying to make was that rich people have a vested interest in promoting a strong middle class. I think they should be pounded, but her point is fine. posted 05/02/2008 at 07:57:39
That said, the point the hag was trying to make was that rich people have a vested interest in promoting a strong middle class. I think they should be pounded, but her point is fine. posted 05/02/2008 at 07:57:39
Obama Navigates the Home Stretch
"...as a result of failing to overcome the variety of challenges that everyone faces..."
A child of wealthy parents (of any race) in Tred-Eastown School District will NEVER EVER face anything near the set of challenges to success that a child of semi-literate parents going to school in West Philly will. Let's not take this too far and assume that "variety" in your comment means "similar" or "congruent." The hills that must be climbed by people in different socio-economic strata most assuredly are NOT the same. posted 05/02/2008 at 12:57:35
A child of wealthy parents (of any race) in Tred-Eastown School District will NEVER EVER face anything near the set of challenges to success that a child of semi-literate parents going to school in West Philly will. Let's not take this too far and assume that "variety" in your comment means "similar" or "congruent." The hills that must be climbed by people in different socio-economic strata most assuredly are NOT the same. posted 05/02/2008 at 12:57:35
Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
Look up the word "hypocrite" for a hint as to the point of the article. You are also need to brush up on the word "democratic," too.
And if "The Obama campaign is the most undemocratic one in the "Democratic" Party that I've seen in my lifetime (50 years)" - then they've been some highly delusional, reality-starved years. Hopefully the future years will be a little clearer for you. posted 05/01/2008 at 23:25:20
And if "The Obama campaign is the most undemocratic one in the "Democratic" Party that I've seen in my lifetime (50 years)" - then they've been some highly delusional, reality-starved years. Hopefully the future years will be a little clearer for you. posted 05/01/2008 at 23:25:20
On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
You are a moron if you're buying into this nonsense that contributions from people who are employed at companies that stand to lose money are the same as accepting money from PACs.
I work at a defense contractor that has over 75,000 employees. It stands to lose a fortune. I get asked by the company to put money into the company's PAC which the company uses to ply friendly candidate campaigns. Employees have no choice in where that PAC money goes. It goes to 'help the company.'
But using your logic, my $100 donation to Obama is a push for him to get us some more contracts and ignore the greater good. That is the logical extension of your position and all I can do is ask you to go pound sand up your pipe. Everyone I know from this place who has donated to Obama would rather be unemployed than see the last 8 years be repeated.
Oh, and by the way, my company is one of the top recipients of clinton's earmarks... which further disproves your insulting, erroneous conclusions. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:11:24
I work at a defense contractor that has over 75,000 employees. It stands to lose a fortune. I get asked by the company to put money into the company's PAC which the company uses to ply friendly candidate campaigns. Employees have no choice in where that PAC money goes. It goes to 'help the company.'
But using your logic, my $100 donation to Obama is a push for him to get us some more contracts and ignore the greater good. That is the logical extension of your position and all I can do is ask you to go pound sand up your pipe. Everyone I know from this place who has donated to Obama would rather be unemployed than see the last 8 years be repeated.
Oh, and by the way, my company is one of the top recipients of clinton's earmarks... which further disproves your insulting, erroneous conclusions. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:11:24
Clinton Vs. The Coffee Machine: Watch Video
Fair enough. I just think the sword should cut both ways. She giggled a pile, I'm sure, over the repeated broadcasts of her shot in the bar stunt to make her seem in touch with us peasants. When she tries to pull another similar stunt and looks like a fool, then it should be getting the same air play as the bar scene - it's only fair.
Regardless, you have to admit, that video makes a killer comeback against her continued 'he's elitist' bull! ;-) posted 05/01/2008 at 12:11:10
Regardless, you have to admit, that video makes a killer comeback against her continued 'he's elitist' bull! ;-) posted 05/01/2008 at 12:11:10
You don't think there was a conversation prior to this being filmed to the effect of, "Why don't you show how 'everyday' you are by getting your own coffee... we'll have the reporters get footage of that... our target demographic will just eat it up!"
I'll bet you dollars to donuts this was staged to make her look good and it backfired. Sure, it's stupid. It's like Ford falling up the stairs. But you're right to wonder if she would normally get her own stuff in a convenience store.... so why do it at all? My theory could be the wrong answer to that question, but it's just as good an explanation as any. Why do YOU think she decided to wait on herself? posted 05/01/2008 at 11:43:04
I'll bet you dollars to donuts this was staged to make her look good and it backfired. Sure, it's stupid. It's like Ford falling up the stairs. But you're right to wonder if she would normally get her own stuff in a convenience store.... so why do it at all? My theory could be the wrong answer to that question, but it's just as good an explanation as any. Why do YOU think she decided to wait on herself? posted 05/01/2008 at 11:43:04
She's as tenacious in defeating the sexist coffee machine as....... posted 05/01/2008 at 11:26:11
Two Ads
oops.... I meant to write "out there" not "our there".... posted 05/01/2008 at 11:23:37
This is EXACTLY how I feel when I hear about tax credits for things like college tuition, et. al. They represent money on the table that the money-grubbing swine with pseudo-monopolistic, pseudo-collusive control will ultimately maneuver to consume.... then those of us on the outside are still left facing the same damn problem again when the prices soar shortly thereafter.
This kind of crap makes my blood boil. But I fully expect this sort of IQ-depleting garbage from clinton and bush - and the other neocon swine our there - so at least I'm prepared for it when I hit the news sites... posted 05/01/2008 at 11:05:54
This kind of crap makes my blood boil. But I fully expect this sort of IQ-depleting garbage from clinton and bush - and the other neocon swine our there - so at least I'm prepared for it when I hit the news sites... posted 05/01/2008 at 11:05:54
Well, if he wants to keep her royal lowness from snatching North Carolina, they better get a lot of airplay and now! The hag marches up and down every day banging the big Rev. Wright bass drum and it's hurting him.
But while we're at ad design, I'd like him to ad a spot that comments on the Indiana company that moved manufacturing to china under the billary administration (part of her 35 years of service)... and maybe a mention about her repeated lies over NAFTA-Canada. posted 05/01/2008 at 10:44:15
But while we're at ad design, I'd like him to ad a spot that comments on the Indiana company that moved manufacturing to china under the billary administration (part of her 35 years of service)... and maybe a mention about her repeated lies over NAFTA-Canada. posted 05/01/2008 at 10:44:15
Hillary Clinton On O'Reilly Factor: Wright's Statements Are Offensive And Outrageous (VIDEO)
That marriage is far more of a tangible issue than comments from a minister. I guess to you, rejecting vows and commitments to someone then publicly lying about it is not as disturbing a trait as being in a church where a guy made sermons that makes you uncomfortable. That can only make sense to a clinton groupie (or anyone in general devoid of logical thought).
How people respond to these things matter. The clintons lie and hide and cover up when faced with adversity. Obama looked everyone in the eye by making a long public speech about the Wright issue. He's not perfect, but at least he has something clinton never will - integrity and character.
You're fine with prying into anything in Obama's private life but clinton's is off limits. Good thing double standards are only things used by misogynists, right? Now run along, you don't want to be late for work at the DLC. posted 05/01/2008 at 08:20:40
How people respond to these things matter. The clintons lie and hide and cover up when faced with adversity. Obama looked everyone in the eye by making a long public speech about the Wright issue. He's not perfect, but at least he has something clinton never will - integrity and character.
You're fine with prying into anything in Obama's private life but clinton's is off limits. Good thing double standards are only things used by misogynists, right? Now run along, you don't want to be late for work at the DLC. posted 05/01/2008 at 08:20:40
Pandering on Energy: Clinton/McCain--Yes, Obama--No
You forgot to mention that the primary reason that roads are falling apart faster than they are being fixed is because blacktop is made with oil. The price per mile to pave a road today is several times more expensive than it was a few years ago. So not only do we screw ourselves over by not contributing to funds to repair roads, we could fix more roads and bridges by honestly addressing the usurious oil company pricing AND by coming up with some better plans for alternate technologies.
But I'm sure that question didn't work well in polling efforts, so hillie went with the 'give em some shiny beads' route. We must be a nation of idiots to tolerate clown candidates like mccain and clinton. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:58:31
But I'm sure that question didn't work well in polling efforts, so hillie went with the 'give em some shiny beads' route. We must be a nation of idiots to tolerate clown candidates like mccain and clinton. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:58:31
Pro-Clinton Group Swiftboating Obama In Indiana
I don't see how he suffered when he was perceived to go negative. The clinton scumbag troop behaved like typical repug operatives and started screeching about, "oh, this is Mr. Positive?" That meant nothing.
The problem that Kerry had was that public perception essentially became, "If he won't defend himself, then he must've never really deserved those medals." You recommend that the American people stand up and say enough is enough. I agree. But if Obama himself doesn't stand up and say enough is enough vis a vis ads that set the record straight, what are we to do?!?!? Obama is not so untouchable that everyone presumes him innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. The cases don't get settled well by not arguing your side and letting false charges get filed - expecting the judge to be so smart as to toss them out. It doesn't work that way. clinton knows it and that's why she keeps slinging mud, push polling, etc. She knows he's just gonna stand there and take it. She knows that scumbags win elections that way.
He has to take that first step and hit back - not by saying hillary has ugly legs, but by shining a light on the stunts she is pulling like claiming she'll rein in spending while simultaneously asking for an outrageous $2.3 billion in earmarks. He also needs to challenge America to think and research and ween ourselves off the mass media. posted 04/30/2008 at 18:19:38
The problem that Kerry had was that public perception essentially became, "If he won't defend himself, then he must've never really deserved those medals." You recommend that the American people stand up and say enough is enough. I agree. But if Obama himself doesn't stand up and say enough is enough vis a vis ads that set the record straight, what are we to do?!?!? Obama is not so untouchable that everyone presumes him innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. The cases don't get settled well by not arguing your side and letting false charges get filed - expecting the judge to be so smart as to toss them out. It doesn't work that way. clinton knows it and that's why she keeps slinging mud, push polling, etc. She knows he's just gonna stand there and take it. She knows that scumbags win elections that way.
He has to take that first step and hit back - not by saying hillary has ugly legs, but by shining a light on the stunts she is pulling like claiming she'll rein in spending while simultaneously asking for an outrageous $2.3 billion in earmarks. He also needs to challenge America to think and research and ween ourselves off the mass media. posted 04/30/2008 at 18:19:38
I see lots of optimistic Obama supporter comments. I'm an increasingly pessimistic Obama supporter. The scumbag rove tactics worked in 2000 and 2004. clinton is now using them in 2008.
Yes, Obama is still ahead in the latest polls, but clinton is closing in fast. We all have to face the fact that there are a LOT more people than we thought who have no brains in their head. Clean up DC with the most unabashed abuser of privilege ($2.3 billion in earmarks? Are you friggin' crazy!?!?!) and the heir apparent to the rove campaign strategies. Sure, makes sense to me... the only way to fix up a corrupt mess is to hire a corrupt mess. That's why she's 'ready on day 1' - it'll just be business as usual.
But the very worst part is I see Obama now swears off "negative" attacks. He's sealing his fate if he refuses to challenge the clinton push polling lies, the clinton supporter who's orchestrating the Wright tour, the NAFTA lies, and whatever new underhanded slash clinton makes today. Watching someone take a beating is horrible - but seeing that person refuse to fight back is even more depressing. posted 04/30/2008 at 08:24:13
Yes, Obama is still ahead in the latest polls, but clinton is closing in fast. We all have to face the fact that there are a LOT more people than we thought who have no brains in their head. Clean up DC with the most unabashed abuser of privilege ($2.3 billion in earmarks? Are you friggin' crazy!?!?!) and the heir apparent to the rove campaign strategies. Sure, makes sense to me... the only way to fix up a corrupt mess is to hire a corrupt mess. That's why she's 'ready on day 1' - it'll just be business as usual.
But the very worst part is I see Obama now swears off "negative" attacks. He's sealing his fate if he refuses to challenge the clinton push polling lies, the clinton supporter who's orchestrating the Wright tour, the NAFTA lies, and whatever new underhanded slash clinton makes today. Watching someone take a beating is horrible - but seeing that person refuse to fight back is even more depressing. posted 04/30/2008 at 08:24:13
Clinton Requests $2.3 Billion In Earmarks
With all due respect, if all that was "nonsense," a court would be less likely to hear the case. And even if the court which is currently hearing the case is required to hear it, I'll defer to the evidence supplied at the trial and review the findings of the judge/jury rather than your link. Will you do the same? posted 04/29/2008 at 12:20:48
299 Superdelegates On The Wall...
This "who will win" is the fool's logic that I fear is infecting more super delegates than anyone wants to consider. The vote won't be based on policy, infrastructure, vision, and governance potential - it'll be based on the logical equivalent of tarot card and palm readings. Ignore the resonance of message, ignore the fact that one candidate is credible at potentially bringing change while the other has made over $100 million on the status quo, ignore the financiers for hillary who will be hurt by change, ignore the fact that the clintons are proven liars, ignore the sideshow circus that has been the clintons for a long time.
Instead of using some assessments about the appropriateness of a candidate's platform, make a prediction! Better yet, make it based on "electability," because it's certainly rational to think that between two people who have each received millions of votes throughout the country only one can be "electable" while the other is a veritable leper. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Worse, let's think that one will be more beaten on by the repug machine... let's believe that there's going to be a federal election where the pigs don't lie, slander, and pull illegal stunts for one Dem - but ravage the other... This is a very reasonable basis for a decision, isn't it!?
Well, while you're at it, give us some good lottery numbers and the winner of the 3rd race in Dover, ok? posted 04/29/2008 at 10:11:17
Instead of using some assessments about the appropriateness of a candidate's platform, make a prediction! Better yet, make it based on "electability," because it's certainly rational to think that between two people who have each received millions of votes throughout the country only one can be "electable" while the other is a veritable leper. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Worse, let's think that one will be more beaten on by the repug machine... let's believe that there's going to be a federal election where the pigs don't lie, slander, and pull illegal stunts for one Dem - but ravage the other... This is a very reasonable basis for a decision, isn't it!?
Well, while you're at it, give us some good lottery numbers and the winner of the 3rd race in Dover, ok? posted 04/29/2008 at 10:11:17
Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close
Fine, have it your way! posted 04/28/2008 at 14:49:51
Sorry to split semantical hairs, but I prefer the term "ignorant" over "stupid."
Ignorance is a determined state of stupidity, whereas stupidity is just absence of knowledge. You must work very hard to dismiss the information that proves the clintons to be no better than the other pigs who've fed at the trough of global empire building. The true clinton believers are a diligent bunch. posted 04/28/2008 at 13:12:35
Ignorance is a determined state of stupidity, whereas stupidity is just absence of knowledge. You must work very hard to dismiss the information that proves the clintons to be no better than the other pigs who've fed at the trough of global empire building. The true clinton believers are a diligent bunch. posted 04/28/2008 at 13:12:35
The clinton constituency doesn't read books that say anything bad about the clintons. They also don't believe the clintons can do anything wrong. I remember a comedian (whose name I'd can't recall) once said of G H bush after the Gulf War, "His ratings are so high the man could sodomize Mother Theresa on the White House lawn and people would cheer." That sort of description befits the clinton believers.
We can't let ourselves become blindly loyal to any political leader - ever. Not Obama, not clinton, not anyone. If the clinton demographic would snap out of their love-fog and do a little homework, hillary would have never even had a shot at the nomination, much less gotten this far. posted 04/28/2008 at 12:40:40
We can't let ourselves become blindly loyal to any political leader - ever. Not Obama, not clinton, not anyone. If the clinton demographic would snap out of their love-fog and do a little homework, hillary would have never even had a shot at the nomination, much less gotten this far. posted 04/28/2008 at 12:40:40
On Sexist Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton
(continued from above...)
I think the author goes across the line in some respects. She and others have to come to grips with the fact that the media is NOT interested in reporting any more. The media is long dead. "News" has been replaced with the world-wide wrestling federation, OK? It's about selling advertising and making big money. It isn't PERSONAL!
Every one and every thing is fodder for their sensationalizing freak show; to be contorted for the "entertainment" of their targeted viewing market. To really fix the problem with the media, the FCC will have to shake it to its core - no easy task. No one is picking on women in general or specifically in the media - they are trying to get ratings, period, end of story. No one nor group is immune to it's abuses. In other words, it's NOT "...because I am a [label of aggrieved party]." posted 04/28/2008 at 10:07:08
I think the author goes across the line in some respects. She and others have to come to grips with the fact that the media is NOT interested in reporting any more. The media is long dead. "News" has been replaced with the world-wide wrestling federation, OK? It's about selling advertising and making big money. It isn't PERSONAL!
Every one and every thing is fodder for their sensationalizing freak show; to be contorted for the "entertainment" of their targeted viewing market. To really fix the problem with the media, the FCC will have to shake it to its core - no easy task. No one is picking on women in general or specifically in the media - they are trying to get ratings, period, end of story. No one nor group is immune to it's abuses. In other words, it's NOT "...because I am a [label of aggrieved party]." posted 04/28/2008 at 10:07:08
There's but a VERY fine line between sexism and feminism. It's the same for many of the anti-bigotry activists who devote themselves to identifying and destroying bigotry. Consider these questions:
1.) Do you listen more intently to a news report featuring someone of your "protected" stock (hillary in this case) than you do to reports not involving your protected (a murder, car accident, theft, etc.)?
2.) Do you listen more intently to ads that feature your protected stock (yes, hillary) than you do to those that aren't related to your protected (ads for auto parts, knives, bathroom cleaners, clothing, jewelry, etc.)?
3.) Do you end at least one sentence in every conversation you have with another person with, "... because I'm a [woman]"? (substitute "woman" for whatever group/trait/creed you're longing to protect)
4.) Do you keep a continuous, accurate count how many people of each group (men, women, transgenderists) get hired/promoted/bonus/fired? (doesn't factor in if this, in fact, is your job in human resources!)
If you answer "yes" to all of those, you are sexist (i.e. bigot). Call yourself "feminist" if you believe that it makes you sound less a sexist, but it doesn't change the fact that you're bigoted.
(continued...) posted 04/28/2008 at 10:00:55
1.) Do you listen more intently to a news report featuring someone of your "protected" stock (hillary in this case) than you do to reports not involving your protected (a murder, car accident, theft, etc.)?
2.) Do you listen more intently to ads that feature your protected stock (yes, hillary) than you do to those that aren't related to your protected (ads for auto parts, knives, bathroom cleaners, clothing, jewelry, etc.)?
3.) Do you end at least one sentence in every conversation you have with another person with, "... because I'm a [woman]"? (substitute "woman" for whatever group/trait/creed you're longing to protect)
4.) Do you keep a continuous, accurate count how many people of each group (men, women, transgenderists) get hired/promoted/bonus/fired? (doesn't factor in if this, in fact, is your job in human resources!)
If you answer "yes" to all of those, you are sexist (i.e. bigot). Call yourself "feminist" if you believe that it makes you sound less a sexist, but it doesn't change the fact that you're bigoted.
(continued...) posted 04/28/2008 at 10:00:55
Michigan: Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon
Yes, the Iowa voters... the one who have delegates that actually count this year... so stupid to have agreed to the loss of delegate votes and to not campaign in the states, and then NOT spent time there currying favors.
The more hopeless your cause becomes, the more deranged, infantile, and, though I thought it impossible, more illogical you hillary-hounds become. Incredible. Face it, a woman will be president one day - just not THIS one... posted 04/26/2008 at 22:06:14
The more hopeless your cause becomes, the more deranged, infantile, and, though I thought it impossible, more illogical you hillary-hounds become. Incredible. Face it, a woman will be president one day - just not THIS one... posted 04/26/2008 at 22:06:14
OK, you're so sure, how about putting your keyboard where your mouth is?
When hillary does NOT get the nomination, you will never post any more comments to HuffPo? What do you say? Put up or shut up? posted 04/26/2008 at 22:00:05
When hillary does NOT get the nomination, you will never post any more comments to HuffPo? What do you say? Put up or shut up? posted 04/26/2008 at 22:00:05
They can't retake the vote because there were Dems who voted in the republican primary. They'd have to redo the republican primary in order to allow all the Dems to buck up and vote again. That's why a revote is not feasible - only a percentage of the Dems wouldn't be allowed to count. So how about you make the call... dial 555-bitemee and sound off. posted 04/26/2008 at 20:41:04
Hillary is Nasty But She is Not Tough
But when the REAL general election occurs, there will be no clinton on the ballot. So my prediction is that mccain would beat her in a virtual shutout.
My prediction has one thing that yours doesn't.... a basis in the real world.
She could have possibly had a realistic chance at winning the nomination if she weren't a lying, scurrilous, vindictive, petty, incompetent tool of the corporatocracy. Because other than those things, she rocks! posted 04/27/2008 at 17:02:48
My prediction has one thing that yours doesn't.... a basis in the real world.
She could have possibly had a realistic chance at winning the nomination if she weren't a lying, scurrilous, vindictive, petty, incompetent tool of the corporatocracy. Because other than those things, she rocks! posted 04/27/2008 at 17:02:48
No Laughing Matter: Obama Has Real Problems With Voters He Needs in November
We don't expect clinton followers to be too strong in recognizing morality in general. If you could, you wouldn't accept a great deal of her conduct. posted 04/25/2008 at 20:22:42
How incredibly brilliant! Did the psychic friends network give you that scoop - or do you have your own crystal ball?
Tell me how many actual, live republicans you know? I know dozens and they would never vote for clinton in this dimension or any other parallel universe. Polls substantiate that pretty resoundingly. There is nowhere near the animosity toward Obama than there is to clinton. posted 04/25/2008 at 20:03:24
Tell me how many actual, live republicans you know? I know dozens and they would never vote for clinton in this dimension or any other parallel universe. Polls substantiate that pretty resoundingly. There is nowhere near the animosity toward Obama than there is to clinton. posted 04/25/2008 at 20:03:24
Why don't you tell US? You and the author are so brilliant as to portend to know that the clinton backers will all break for mccain. So you tell us, in detail, exactly how it will be. Of course, when you're wrong, you should have the good taste to never post another political comment again.
Wake up. It's too early to know any of that crap - we don't even know who his VP will be!
You and the author need to come down from the altars you erected to your magic 8-ball-based genius and admit that you don't have enough data to make a reasonable guess about what general election voters will do with Obama. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:55:30
Wake up. It's too early to know any of that crap - we don't even know who his VP will be!
You and the author need to come down from the altars you erected to your magic 8-ball-based genius and admit that you don't have enough data to make a reasonable guess about what general election voters will do with Obama. posted 04/25/2008 at 19:55:30
Hillary Clinton Supporters -- The Global Warming Deniers of Democratic Politics?
You need help. No joke. posted 04/25/2008 at 17:08:58
The Politics of Food is Politics
Stan, the fact that there's only 1 other person posting a comment to your essay is testament to the fact that this issue is two things: 1.) hard to understand and 2.) terrifying once you understand it. There is a call for a major shift in your essay. But the sad reality is that it won't happen until we are in the throes of deep famine and have more of our own people starving.
The only pragmatic thing to do is start somewhat slowly. President Obama should add a cabinet post for agriculture reform, who will manage elements of the Commerce, Justice, Interior and EPA to dismantle the current machine, reign in the mass land-rapists, and start building a functional food/farm program. It won't happen overnight. posted 04/25/2008 at 09:57:35
The only pragmatic thing to do is start somewhat slowly. President Obama should add a cabinet post for agriculture reform, who will manage elements of the Commerce, Justice, Interior and EPA to dismantle the current machine, reign in the mass land-rapists, and start building a functional food/farm program. It won't happen overnight. posted 04/25/2008 at 09:57:35
Is Hillary Clinton Push Polling?
I think it's essential that he publicly take her to task on these issues. He has to show the folks who haven't voted yet that he's not going to be a pinata in the general election for mccain.
Come to think of it, some of us who have already voted would like to see evidence that he's not going to be a pinata for his opponents, too. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:25:10
Come to think of it, some of us who have already voted would like to see evidence that he's not going to be a pinata for his opponents, too. posted 04/24/2008 at 22:25:10
"I find this kind of thing pretty shocking..."
Did you just wake up from a coma or something? Underhanded filth from the clinton campaign shocks you? Someone needs to catch you up on current events... this sort of thing from her is the opposite of shocking. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:35:50
Did you just wake up from a coma or something? Underhanded filth from the clinton campaign shocks you? Someone needs to catch you up on current events... this sort of thing from her is the opposite of shocking. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:35:50
Semantical bulls**t. You don't consider anything clinton does as foul or out of bounds. But your having no moral compass doesn't mean that this is not an issue.
Oh, and congratulations on the spelling catch. Big fan of "gothcha," aren't you? posted 04/24/2008 at 21:25:42
Oh, and congratulations on the spelling catch. Big fan of "gothcha," aren't you? posted 04/24/2008 at 21:25:42
How Obama Might Lose
Agree with that. I've said that all along.
However, I cling to the belief, perhaps mistakenly, that Obama will be far more aggressive against mccain. In stump speeches, he shows that he is much more willing to strike at mccain. I suspect Obama doesn't want to alienate the Clinton backers any more than they already seem to be and is caught in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. posted 04/24/2008 at 11:08:16
However, I cling to the belief, perhaps mistakenly, that Obama will be far more aggressive against mccain. In stump speeches, he shows that he is much more willing to strike at mccain. I suspect Obama doesn't want to alienate the Clinton backers any more than they already seem to be and is caught in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. posted 04/24/2008 at 11:08:16
Kerry was a sure thing, too.
Your map doesn't exactly replace 6 months of actual campaigning and media intervention and dirty tricks. posted 04/24/2008 at 10:01:09
Your map doesn't exactly replace 6 months of actual campaigning and media intervention and dirty tricks. posted 04/24/2008 at 10:01:09
She's just tired and shagged out after a long squawk. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:59:11
I see many disagreements with the post. With all due respect, I think it's correct and it's a manifestation of the condition I most feared in Obama: running on the premise that you must respect everyone at all times. That premise works when everyone else plays by the same set of principled rules - which isn't the case in a campaign nor in DC.
There are times when people do or call for things that demand admonition and earnest repudiation. Tom listed the most egregious issues and Obama has gone out of his way to give hillary a pass on them. Hillary-mccain, expect that from Obama and will continue to kick him in the nuts until he falls down.
Kerry and Gore lost mainly because they refused to defend themselves against rove in the exact same way that Obama lays off hillary. They didn't want to say anything "negative" about bush, too. Obama laces innuendo into his speeches and ads that address her shortcomings, but those messages are lost on the older and under-educated demographic.
She will be telling superdelegates this and may ultimately steal the nomination. Don't get me wrong, she'll be obliterated in the general election and probably lead to repug control of the House. But on face, the argument ('he's running like Kerry and Gore') has some merit and it will not fall on completely deaf ears. He HAS to show that he's willing to directly challenge hillary's severe indiscretions or it's going to get ugly. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:55:36
There are times when people do or call for things that demand admonition and earnest repudiation. Tom listed the most egregious issues and Obama has gone out of his way to give hillary a pass on them. Hillary-mccain, expect that from Obama and will continue to kick him in the nuts until he falls down.
Kerry and Gore lost mainly because they refused to defend themselves against rove in the exact same way that Obama lays off hillary. They didn't want to say anything "negative" about bush, too. Obama laces innuendo into his speeches and ads that address her shortcomings, but those messages are lost on the older and under-educated demographic.
She will be telling superdelegates this and may ultimately steal the nomination. Don't get me wrong, she'll be obliterated in the general election and probably lead to repug control of the House. But on face, the argument ('he's running like Kerry and Gore') has some merit and it will not fall on completely deaf ears. He HAS to show that he's willing to directly challenge hillary's severe indiscretions or it's going to get ugly. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:55:36
Hillary's New Inevitability
"I support Clinton because I believe she is the only candidate who can beat McCain."
Your belief has absolutely no relevance, basis in fact, nor any impact on reality that has yet to unfold. If your support is completely based on one's ability to beat a repug, then you have already proved yourself incompetent. For example, tell me who is mccain's VP choice? How is that effecting the outcome? Who is Obama's VP? Who is hillary's? What world and national events have occurred from May thru November that effect votes? What will the turnout for the November election be? How much money will each side raise? What will the debate formats be? Who will have a gaffe and when? Will a jury get to the clinton fraud trial in California sooner or later?
You can't answer those and they're all essential and critical details to understand before you can stand behind some sort of November outcome as the basis of your vote. If you look in the mirror and ask yourself what the real reason is that you're supporting her, you know it's not the one you state here.
All your other rationalization is bull (for example, somehow the DNC's stripping of delegates from MI and FL only alienates Obama even though both campaigns signed onto the DNC ruling?). Before you call someone "stupid" maybe you shouldn't write something that proves you are on a level lower than your aspersion. posted 04/24/2008 at 10:58:09
Your belief has absolutely no relevance, basis in fact, nor any impact on reality that has yet to unfold. If your support is completely based on one's ability to beat a repug, then you have already proved yourself incompetent. For example, tell me who is mccain's VP choice? How is that effecting the outcome? Who is Obama's VP? Who is hillary's? What world and national events have occurred from May thru November that effect votes? What will the turnout for the November election be? How much money will each side raise? What will the debate formats be? Who will have a gaffe and when? Will a jury get to the clinton fraud trial in California sooner or later?
You can't answer those and they're all essential and critical details to understand before you can stand behind some sort of November outcome as the basis of your vote. If you look in the mirror and ask yourself what the real reason is that you're supporting her, you know it's not the one you state here.
All your other rationalization is bull (for example, somehow the DNC's stripping of delegates from MI and FL only alienates Obama even though both campaigns signed onto the DNC ruling?). Before you call someone "stupid" maybe you shouldn't write something that proves you are on a level lower than your aspersion. posted 04/24/2008 at 10:58:09
Exactly right - logical and well-reasoned. However, the demographic that Obama isn't reaching - and hillary reaches - are not working on the same level of logic. They are tapping into emotion and rhetoric and nostalgia. This is clear to many of us, but it's escaping Obama's campaign. Question is, what demographic are the uncommitted superdelegates? posted 04/24/2008 at 10:06:00
PA is fairly large, SMP. What general area are you in? There are racists everywhere, so it's a little tough to make a sweeping declaration of 'most racist state' stick. We have many embarrassing tendencies - but I'd be more easily convinced that we've got a larger than average band of people with blind faith capability (Catholics, a gang from which I escaped 20+ years ago, are a significant contingent in that group), which is a key component to getting suckered by liars.
And to answer why no one is covering the fraud hearing is pretty obvious. You know the answer. The clintons have long been considered "corporatists" and their ability to squelch news stories during the early stages of the primary campaign has been documented in Salon and elsewhere. This is one of the reasons why the clintons need to be pushed off the stage. They can pull these games when fighting with Democrats, but they won't be able to if she were to steal the nomination and face mccain.
Does anyone think for a minute that the rnc doesn't know about the trial and her actions that have led to the trial??? Of course not! She will be crucified on that matter and there is no amount of tears and sexist victimization pandering that will be able to save her from being crushed - while taking down-ticket House Dem candidates with her. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:26:30
And to answer why no one is covering the fraud hearing is pretty obvious. You know the answer. The clintons have long been considered "corporatists" and their ability to squelch news stories during the early stages of the primary campaign has been documented in Salon and elsewhere. This is one of the reasons why the clintons need to be pushed off the stage. They can pull these games when fighting with Democrats, but they won't be able to if she were to steal the nomination and face mccain.
Does anyone think for a minute that the rnc doesn't know about the trial and her actions that have led to the trial??? Of course not! She will be crucified on that matter and there is no amount of tears and sexist victimization pandering that will be able to save her from being crushed - while taking down-ticket House Dem candidates with her. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:26:30
The vote totals for the counties around Philly and Philly add up to almost 1 million votes. That's about 40+% of the entire state's vote. They are the most affluent areas in the state with the highest concentration of college graduates and educational institutions. So tell me, why wouldn't any candidate want that sort of representation? Are we too "elite?"
BEFORE you answer that... a few more stats. The saintly Fast Eddie Rendell won in 2002 (I don't see the 2006 stats, but they won't be significantly different than 2002). Guess how many counties he carried? Eight. With the exception of Berks, Lehigh, and Bucks, basically the same counties that Obama won.... including Centre County.
Good enough for Fast Eddie to carry to a win, but not good enough for Obama? Sounds like you don't have a clue. Do some homework. posted 04/23/2008 at 21:10:02
BEFORE you answer that... a few more stats. The saintly Fast Eddie Rendell won in 2002 (I don't see the 2006 stats, but they won't be significantly different than 2002). Guess how many counties he carried? Eight. With the exception of Berks, Lehigh, and Bucks, basically the same counties that Obama won.... including Centre County.
Good enough for Fast Eddie to carry to a win, but not good enough for Obama? Sounds like you don't have a clue. Do some homework. posted 04/23/2008 at 21:10:02
I don't disagree that the DNC over-reacted. I live in PA and this is the first time in my lifetime where a primary vote for president actually had some degree of meaning. A new plan that gives different regions of states the first wave of primaries in alternating years needs to be adopted so Iowa isn't always first. It's a silly, pointless and exclusive "tradition."
You used the word "legislator." Just to clarify, there was only one Dem legislator who opposed moving up the date. So virtually everyone decided to challenge the DNC on the primary date issue. Again, I think the DNC's stand is weak on this. But regardless, it is what it is and it's not going to change. posted 04/23/2008 at 20:39:03
You used the word "legislator." Just to clarify, there was only one Dem legislator who opposed moving up the date. So virtually everyone decided to challenge the DNC on the primary date issue. Again, I think the DNC's stand is weak on this. But regardless, it is what it is and it's not going to change. posted 04/23/2008 at 20:39:03
I agree whole-heartedly that it's childish and stupid. If it were my campaign and I sensed that it was a pervasive activity, I'd send agents to attend campaigns and ask the authorities to identify the people disrupting events. I don't condone that behavior.
But Kerry lost in 2004 for a lot of reasons. I don't believe there is much evidence to suggest that this public misbehaving was a substantive cause for his defeat.
Regardless, I hope when November comes, you will be taking the content of the candidate's character into account when you cast a vote. posted 04/23/2008 at 17:13:43
But Kerry lost in 2004 for a lot of reasons. I don't believe there is much evidence to suggest that this public misbehaving was a substantive cause for his defeat.
Regardless, I hope when November comes, you will be taking the content of the candidate's character into account when you cast a vote. posted 04/23/2008 at 17:13:43
Ah, I get it... you're channeling dennis miller... you're a riot. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:59:20
Wow, who unlocked the asylum doors today?
The counties are broken down by geography, not population. Obama won most of the highest density counties, which is why his numbers were still good.
Obama spent what you could call record amounts of money - because he HAS record amounts of money. If he had NOT spent an appreciable amount of the mountain of money he has on hand, you'd vilify him for "skipping the state." Since hillary had a 25-point lead in the state a couple months ago in some polls, she didn't gain any ground on him at all.
NC polls suggest that Obama's gains there will offset hillary's PA gains. So then what are you going to argue? posted 04/23/2008 at 16:57:51
The counties are broken down by geography, not population. Obama won most of the highest density counties, which is why his numbers were still good.
Obama spent what you could call record amounts of money - because he HAS record amounts of money. If he had NOT spent an appreciable amount of the mountain of money he has on hand, you'd vilify him for "skipping the state." Since hillary had a 25-point lead in the state a couple months ago in some polls, she didn't gain any ground on him at all.
NC polls suggest that Obama's gains there will offset hillary's PA gains. So then what are you going to argue? posted 04/23/2008 at 16:57:51
Then they should count the vote totals for my kid's elementary school, too. They are just as legitimate as the ones in Florida and Michigan. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:49:45
OK, bozo... An undetermined number of Michigan Dems voted in your primary because they knew that their Dem votes wouldn't be counted, so it's completely inappropriate to count them. It's easily proved that the votes cast do NOT represent an accurate count of Dem preference. FL's situation is a little different, but only 1 Democrat in the State assembly voted against the bill to move up their primary date. So the votes in Florida and Michigan DON'T count. They won't count. So your argument is moot. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:47:47
I stand corrected. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:12:11
So hecklers are more distasteful than entrenched, political power-grubbing, serial liars?!? I'm a little disappointed in that... not that I support idiots heckling a candidate, but it's disconcerting to learn that the people value the content of a candidate's poor character less than the childish antics of other voters. Is this the same group that also buys into the logic that ascribes to the "guilt-by-association" wisdom?
I guess we really DO get the government we deserve.... posted 04/23/2008 at 15:54:06
I guess we really DO get the government we deserve.... posted 04/23/2008 at 15:54:06
You miss a subtlety - if hillary wins, republicans will very likely be out in record numbers to vote against her (if you believe our repug "friend" that we all know at least a couple of...). While at the polls, they will turn the House back over to the repugs. So not only would we potentially have mccain in the white house, he'll be able to shut down investigations and control spending legislation.
Just a little something to consider whilst smiting spiteful bastards as perhaps one group of spiteful bastards may have a substantially more onerous effect on the country than another group of bastards.... posted 04/23/2008 at 15:37:49
Just a little something to consider whilst smiting spiteful bastards as perhaps one group of spiteful bastards may have a substantially more onerous effect on the country than another group of bastards.... posted 04/23/2008 at 15:37:49
Pennsylvania Democrats for McCain!
You're able to calmly observe the campaign conduct (words and actions) of the two candidates and simply conclude that they are the same because their policy is similar? If you can separate the content of their respective character and say it's a wash, that's just astounding. You'd have to believe that all of hillary's lying and all of bubba's self-serving lobbying for his rich-powerful friends is going to come to a screeching halt after years of gluttonous operation.
I know this is repetitive... but it's astounding that you can just walk past that aspect of the overall picture of the candidate's potential to serve the greater good and call it a tie. Three months ago I could buy that argument. We didn't behold her filthy gutter campaign tactics, her obscene income, and her steady stream of lies back then. But now?!?! Not a chance. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:19:06
I know this is repetitive... but it's astounding that you can just walk past that aspect of the overall picture of the candidate's potential to serve the greater good and call it a tie. Three months ago I could buy that argument. We didn't behold her filthy gutter campaign tactics, her obscene income, and her steady stream of lies back then. But now?!?! Not a chance. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:19:06
OK, for some reason, my first comment to yours was omitted by the censors...
But it boiled down to this, by using your logic, mccain wins in November and there is no other possible outcome - period. Your premise is that if it hasn't happened in elections in 225 years, it can't happen. Therefore, neither a woman nor a black man can be elected president.
So you either reconsider your argument (which has no basis in fact) or withdraw it. When human decision-making is the outcome you are predicting in an experiment, decisions made 200, 100, 20, or 2 years ago are irrelevant. They are especially irrelevant when you don't even know what all the choices are for the decision. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:26:38
But it boiled down to this, by using your logic, mccain wins in November and there is no other possible outcome - period. Your premise is that if it hasn't happened in elections in 225 years, it can't happen. Therefore, neither a woman nor a black man can be elected president.
So you either reconsider your argument (which has no basis in fact) or withdraw it. When human decision-making is the outcome you are predicting in an experiment, decisions made 200, 100, 20, or 2 years ago are irrelevant. They are especially irrelevant when you don't even know what all the choices are for the decision. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:26:38
Ironically, I'm in agreement with pretty much every comment you've posted to this article - except your comment on me! posted 04/23/2008 at 13:14:26
When human decision-making is the center of the experiment, it is completely incorrect to propose to prove a future outcome - especially when the actual choices are unknown.
Regardless, you do yourself a disservice with your totally illogical conclusion. For example, using your logic, the only possible conclusion is that mccain will win the general election. According to the basis of your argument, in 225 years we've never had a non-white or female president win an election. Therefore, it's only possible to have white male presidents. It's complete bullsh*t conclusion.
When the field is set, you can go ahead and make predictions based on some modest amount of data. But until then, declaring a 3rd party candidate dead is wildly inane speculation. However, if you want to speculate on nader's chances, THAT actually has some past data to help support a prediction of his specific failure (and I'd agree with the likelihood of his demise). posted 04/23/2008 at 13:10:06
Regardless, you do yourself a disservice with your totally illogical conclusion. For example, using your logic, the only possible conclusion is that mccain will win the general election. According to the basis of your argument, in 225 years we've never had a non-white or female president win an election. Therefore, it's only possible to have white male presidents. It's complete bullsh*t conclusion.
When the field is set, you can go ahead and make predictions based on some modest amount of data. But until then, declaring a 3rd party candidate dead is wildly inane speculation. However, if you want to speculate on nader's chances, THAT actually has some past data to help support a prediction of his specific failure (and I'd agree with the likelihood of his demise). posted 04/23/2008 at 13:10:06
In my 40+ years, I've noted that everyone who has referred to themselves as a "guru" is the person in the room with the absolute lowest IQ.
Of course, it gets a little more confusing when there is more than one of you folks in the room... but that actually makes it easier to recognize that it's time to get out of the room altogether. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:52:51
Of course, it gets a little more confusing when there is more than one of you folks in the room... but that actually makes it easier to recognize that it's time to get out of the room altogether. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:52:51
No. A vote for a 3rd party is a clear(er) message that we believe the candidates of status quo are not good enough. Plus, you don't know who the 3rd party options may be. Perot was a goofball, got about 20% of the popular vote, and bubba still won. There's no evidence to conclusively prove that a legitimate 3rd party candidate can not win the presidency.
Besides, every dollar clinton spends attacking Obama is a dollar spent on mccain. She knows this. You seem to care about keeping mccain out of the white house, but she clearly doesn't. So how can we look at ourselves in the mirror, knowing what we know about her character, and vote for her? How can we reward her? How can we have any faith in her to do right by us when she won't do right during her campaign?
I find it ironic that the genius hillary-homers focus on his electibility as their chief concern about Obama - and then many claim they won't vote for him? Nice self-fulfilling prophecy. He has done nothing beyond getting hit with low blow after low blow to elicit such response, whereas, on the other hand, hillary has run a hideously revolting campaign, embarrassing the party and herself in the process. I can't do it. And I won't apologize. The good news is that it will be over soon and hillary will be taking her leave, and I'll have an easy decision to make in November. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:48:00
Besides, every dollar clinton spends attacking Obama is a dollar spent on mccain. She knows this. You seem to care about keeping mccain out of the white house, but she clearly doesn't. So how can we look at ourselves in the mirror, knowing what we know about her character, and vote for her? How can we reward her? How can we have any faith in her to do right by us when she won't do right during her campaign?
I find it ironic that the genius hillary-homers focus on his electibility as their chief concern about Obama - and then many claim they won't vote for him? Nice self-fulfilling prophecy. He has done nothing beyond getting hit with low blow after low blow to elicit such response, whereas, on the other hand, hillary has run a hideously revolting campaign, embarrassing the party and herself in the process. I can't do it. And I won't apologize. The good news is that it will be over soon and hillary will be taking her leave, and I'll have an easy decision to make in November. posted 04/23/2008 at 11:48:00
Hillary's Next Must-Win: Indiana
Bayh is more DLC scum. I hope you guys do better than we did here against the PA version of the 'good old boys Dem network' that Rendell leads. Fast Eddie will get his, though. His second term is his last and unless clinton somehow steals the nomination from Obama, he's closed doors to his Cabinet opportunities based on his many fux news appearances. I wouldn't be surprised if he joins the DLC "leadership" group. posted 04/23/2008 at 09:49:02
Pennsylvania Primary: Liveblogging the Results
Matthews and most of the rest of those asshats aren't worth their weight in goose crap. They don't have a clue. I don't blame the people of Luzerne County as much as I blame clinton for manipulating them and playing to their basest instincts and fears. I'd feel much better if people would wake the hell up and stop letting themselves get played, but we've got what we've got and have to deal with it. posted 04/22/2008 at 23:32:42
Smug, huh.... Well, I have to admit, running like bush worked twice for bush, but if you respond to that same sort of crap from hillary, don't expect anything better than condescension because that's about all the respect you deserve. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:34:47
Chester County is trickling in. The County says 37 precincts are in (of 224), but there are about 16 bogus result files posted. Of the ones with real results, clinton won 1 (one). And that was by 3 votes (97-94). Every other precinct with maybe 2 exceptions, is Obama by 8-11%.
So I call the County for Obama! Congratulations! posted 04/22/2008 at 22:28:19
So I call the County for Obama! Congratulations! posted 04/22/2008 at 22:28:19
You asked a stupid question. I answered it.
The "way I think" is simple, fact-based logic. I don't tell anyone adopt my opinions - just use sound reasoning.
And it's not "petty" to vote for someone because of mean ole timm0 - it's pathetic and embarrassing. Vote for who you think will be the best public servant. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:34:45
The "way I think" is simple, fact-based logic. I don't tell anyone adopt my opinions - just use sound reasoning.
And it's not "petty" to vote for someone because of mean ole timm0 - it's pathetic and embarrassing. Vote for who you think will be the best public servant. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:34:45
The person who black people are supporting in large percentages hasn't left a trail of lies, half-truths, innuendo, and a heaping dose of republican "smear and fear" tactics. The person that large numbers of black people support has treated the electorate as adults, respected the integrity of the party and its candidates, and has, with only a few exceptions, conducted an exemplary campaign.
THAT'S the difference.... hopefully one day when you grow up, you'll understand. posted 04/22/2008 at 20:54:53
THAT'S the difference.... hopefully one day when you grow up, you'll understand. posted 04/22/2008 at 20:54:53
I just got the call too! But there's only 10 minutes left before polls close. Why bother? posted 04/22/2008 at 19:56:43
Obama-Rendell in '08!
If eddie were dressed as Santa Claus, I'd drill him with a snowball. So let's not totally demonize the act, OK? :-) posted 04/23/2008 at 09:42:37
Unity ticket concept is totally irrelevant. Rendell is probably the worst of all the VP options that have been projected so far. Please stop... being a loyal clintonite is hardly a positive qualification for VP.... geez. posted 04/22/2008 at 21:14:37
Bill Clinton: Hillary Would Be Winning Under GOP Primary Rules
Yeah, really.... go and don't ever come the hell back... scumbag. posted 04/21/2008 at 18:36:51
Letter from Penny in Pennsylvania: Forget You, Barack
Read this woman's [only] other post on HuffPo. It's a purely pro-clinton piece. This is not intended to be funny. It's merely another execution point on the pre-primary saturation bombing of the state by the wicked one. It's meant to balance the harshness of her ads. Expect a few more of these fluffy pieces of crap to be posted through April 22.
And you don't have to be "intelligent" to know when someone's blowing smoke up your tailpipe. You just have to open your eyes and turn around. You hillary-hangers-on should do some homework once in a while. Maybe you'll stop feeling stupid when you start doing some critical thinking. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:34:45
And you don't have to be "intelligent" to know when someone's blowing smoke up your tailpipe. You just have to open your eyes and turn around. You hillary-hangers-on should do some homework once in a while. Maybe you'll stop feeling stupid when you start doing some critical thinking. posted 04/21/2008 at 16:34:45
Who is Hillary Clinton?
When did you become the arbiter of what is "hate" and who expresses it?
If telling the truth about the morally bankrupt behavior is "hate" - then what do you call lying about someone else's behavior? HUH?!? I doubt your head can handle that question. posted 04/21/2008 at 15:55:13
If telling the truth about the morally bankrupt behavior is "hate" - then what do you call lying about someone else's behavior? HUH?!? I doubt your head can handle that question. posted 04/21/2008 at 15:55:13
Clinton's Attacks on Obama Patriotism Have Nothing to Do With "What the Republicans Will Say in November" - Everything to Do with Her Own Strategy
You're wrong. joe lieberman is proof.
lieberman comes onto fux news and spews about, for example, how pro-terrorist the Dems are. Then the repugs run about the countryside to proclaim how, "even other Democrats know that most of the other Democrats are terrorist-lovers!"
hillary's campaign pre-builds an excuse and creates narrative for the repugs. They can move straight into sound bites like this, "Half the Dems voted for someone as hated as hillary because they knew how much of a crazy racist worker-hating flag-burning liberal Obama is" without lifting a finger, running a single ad, brow-beating any editorial boards - no effort at all. She is the single largest donator to mccain's campaign.
That you are incapable of recognizing that fact doesn't mean that your opinion has any merit. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:34:11
lieberman comes onto fux news and spews about, for example, how pro-terrorist the Dems are. Then the repugs run about the countryside to proclaim how, "even other Democrats know that most of the other Democrats are terrorist-lovers!"
hillary's campaign pre-builds an excuse and creates narrative for the repugs. They can move straight into sound bites like this, "Half the Dems voted for someone as hated as hillary because they knew how much of a crazy racist worker-hating flag-burning liberal Obama is" without lifting a finger, running a single ad, brow-beating any editorial boards - no effort at all. She is the single largest donator to mccain's campaign.
That you are incapable of recognizing that fact doesn't mean that your opinion has any merit. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:34:11
I give you hillary-hangers credit - you aren't just ignorant, you're zealously and hyperactively ignorant.
She knew that bubba used Wright as a spiritual adviser in the past, yet she helped fan the flames of his "issue." She knew that Rezko was a contributor to past clinton campaigns, but sought to defame Obama's connections to the man. She also knew (unless she is a complete, unadulterated moron) Obama's San Francisco comments were an accurate reflection of many single-issue voters, but decided to create and run ads featuring the 'words,' contorted to fit an inaccurate projection of Obama as condescending to working people.
Those are all clear and factual events that prove there was nothing that was Obama's fault - other than running against a repulsive, old-school, under-handed, dishonest pig who is comfortable with lying and misleading her way to wherever she wants to go. She has no morals nor principle - yet she and bubba and her surrogates work tirelessly to disparage everyone else's. She is truly a disgusting poster child for all that is wrong in national politics today. Period. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:00:14
She knew that bubba used Wright as a spiritual adviser in the past, yet she helped fan the flames of his "issue." She knew that Rezko was a contributor to past clinton campaigns, but sought to defame Obama's connections to the man. She also knew (unless she is a complete, unadulterated moron) Obama's San Francisco comments were an accurate reflection of many single-issue voters, but decided to create and run ads featuring the 'words,' contorted to fit an inaccurate projection of Obama as condescending to working people.
Those are all clear and factual events that prove there was nothing that was Obama's fault - other than running against a repulsive, old-school, under-handed, dishonest pig who is comfortable with lying and misleading her way to wherever she wants to go. She has no morals nor principle - yet she and bubba and her surrogates work tirelessly to disparage everyone else's. She is truly a disgusting poster child for all that is wrong in national politics today. Period. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:00:14
A Guide to NYT Bombshell on Military/Media Propaganda
The core structure of the repuglican party is based on climbing that ladder. It's very similar to gangland groups. This revelation doesn't surprise me in the least.
And on top of that, realize that there are hundreds - if not thousands - more willing volunteers waiting for their turn to throw themselves on the sword; and that's just in the Pentagon. posted 04/20/2008 at 14:05:12
And on top of that, realize that there are hundreds - if not thousands - more willing volunteers waiting for their turn to throw themselves on the sword; and that's just in the Pentagon. posted 04/20/2008 at 14:05:12
Stupid Is As Hillary (and Charlie, George, and Tim) Does
You describe some of her followers as "rabid." You ignore the fact that she's pushing about 70% untrusted ratings right now. And there is a massive number of people who hate her - rabidly. So how do you come to the conclusion that Obama may not win without her? It's far more reasonable to conclude that she will be concrete shoes in November for his candidacy.
She represents everything about politics that most people loathe. There are a significant number of people who are voting for her because they had a good time in the 90s under bubba and that's about as far as they can think. There's also a large contingent of people who have been victimized by men and the thought of sticking it to the boys by electing a female president is an all-consuming passion.
So it's no surprise that analysis of hillary's policy and defense of her vision by her supporters is rarely rational or logical. And to imply that Obama can't get over the childish insults is a pretty wide and wild stroke. If you're saying that he should get used to the campaign and media stupidity, I say no. We should all be disgusted by it. If anything, he needs to be more blunt about how stupid he media questions and campaign slurs are in real time. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:18:07
She represents everything about politics that most people loathe. There are a significant number of people who are voting for her because they had a good time in the 90s under bubba and that's about as far as they can think. There's also a large contingent of people who have been victimized by men and the thought of sticking it to the boys by electing a female president is an all-consuming passion.
So it's no surprise that analysis of hillary's policy and defense of her vision by her supporters is rarely rational or logical. And to imply that Obama can't get over the childish insults is a pretty wide and wild stroke. If you're saying that he should get used to the campaign and media stupidity, I say no. We should all be disgusted by it. If anything, he needs to be more blunt about how stupid he media questions and campaign slurs are in real time. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:18:07
Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies
Not centrist enough to win? Wow, that is intensely dumb - unless of course, you can prove it... so who won in November 2008? How was their platform? posted 04/18/2008 at 22:08:17
I'm really tired of that lame illogic. It is instantly invalidated with the inverse argument - What good is a candidate who can win, but won't govern well? In addition, how do you know who will win and won't win? You have to know in order for this 'they're useless unless they can win' bunk to have any validity.
The guy isn't crumbling - unless your definition of crumbling is "behaving in a respectful, diplomatic manner." Technically, she is still a Democrat and he's giving her the respect that she deserves whereas the opposite is clearly untrue. I suspect things will be dignified but far more blunt and direct once it's Obama vs. mccain. posted 04/18/2008 at 22:01:15
The guy isn't crumbling - unless your definition of crumbling is "behaving in a respectful, diplomatic manner." Technically, she is still a Democrat and he's giving her the respect that she deserves whereas the opposite is clearly untrue. I suspect things will be dignified but far more blunt and direct once it's Obama vs. mccain. posted 04/18/2008 at 22:01:15
This helps explain why she's reduced to spending bubba's (clean, no strings-attached) speechifying money to keep her bankrupt campaign bulldozer creeping forward. posted 04/18/2008 at 20:47:12
She Just Can't Quit
There was one post out of 30 that said anything about race. You imply that all Obama followers are posting black-white comments... and then deign to wag your finger about "fairness."
This is what you hillary shills have in common: you are so angry that you are divorced from reality, lost all objectivity, and purged all logic from your consciousness. posted 04/20/2008 at 13:35:05
This is what you hillary shills have in common: you are so angry that you are divorced from reality, lost all objectivity, and purged all logic from your consciousness. posted 04/20/2008 at 13:35:05
Winning Pennsylvania
OICUR2 is partially right - it's too late for a weekend push to really make a difference. But the help Obama needs is for a large number of people to snap out of their fogs of illogic. The most ardent supports here in the western Philly suburbs are angry women who are angry and vengeful over their experiences/perceptions of sexism - and they're angry.
Did I mention they're angry?
A couple hours ago, I saw a lady holding up a 4 foot high hillary sign (huge) at a strip mall entrance. How the hell does that get votes? I have no idea. But they're angry and as I've blathered about in the past, this sub-group isn't really known to be very shy nor concerned about their public dignity. Like hillary, they really don't know where to stop when trying to make their point.
Regardless, I think most of the decisions have been made and there will be no poll movement until after the election. However, I think hillary's victory will be very small - 2 or 3%. posted 04/18/2008 at 14:41:28
Did I mention they're angry?
A couple hours ago, I saw a lady holding up a 4 foot high hillary sign (huge) at a strip mall entrance. How the hell does that get votes? I have no idea. But they're angry and as I've blathered about in the past, this sub-group isn't really known to be very shy nor concerned about their public dignity. Like hillary, they really don't know where to stop when trying to make their point.
Regardless, I think most of the decisions have been made and there will be no poll movement until after the election. However, I think hillary's victory will be very small - 2 or 3%. posted 04/18/2008 at 14:41:28
Worst Debate Ever? Demographics Anyone?
An example in PA are taxes for preserving open space. They normally require referendums and the referendums over the last 4 years have passed by a margin of 15% or more about 70% of the time.
If candidates are chickensh*t to openly, honestly discuss/detail tax matters, the repugs will always win votes (a lot of votes) by going their usual low road. When you shoot straight, people will at least give you some consideration. That is, when you give enough properly framed information to the voters, most are far less likely to accept simplistic name-calling as a reasonable alternative.
And it forces your opponent to answer the question that is the basis of your policy. 'Do you not believe that this is costing a lot of tax money and isn't effective? What is YOUR plan to fix this problem?' In fact, the debate starts to shift away from the solution and toward the verification of the problem (e.g. the global warming debate), but I digress.
Funny how kindergarten rules like 'honesty is the best policy' are all you need to use to run a campaign... what does that say about the bob shrums of the world? (don't answer that) posted 04/18/2008 at 09:28:04
If candidates are chickensh*t to openly, honestly discuss/detail tax matters, the repugs will always win votes (a lot of votes) by going their usual low road. When you shoot straight, people will at least give you some consideration. That is, when you give enough properly framed information to the voters, most are far less likely to accept simplistic name-calling as a reasonable alternative.
And it forces your opponent to answer the question that is the basis of your policy. 'Do you not believe that this is costing a lot of tax money and isn't effective? What is YOUR plan to fix this problem?' In fact, the debate starts to shift away from the solution and toward the verification of the problem (e.g. the global warming debate), but I digress.
Funny how kindergarten rules like 'honesty is the best policy' are all you need to use to run a campaign... what does that say about the bob shrums of the world? (don't answer that) posted 04/18/2008 at 09:28:04
One of the many disgusting moments in the debate featured the abc toads baiting the candidates into "read my lips" promises. The "gotcha" debate did as much to try to set up future "gotchas" as it served the current ones. Pathetic.
The favorite sport of the repug turd machine is to parse and label things as "taxes." For example, both candidate's health care plans (I don't like either one - anything shorter than single-payer is a bandaid on a bullet wound) will be run by mccain as new taxes on the middle class. They'll be "lyars" and "flip-floppers." And wsj will be a vocal supporter of that crap.
Candidates need to offer much, much more detail to the public. That's the only way to turn around the discussion and mute the constant drone of taxes, taxes, flipflop, taxes, taxes from imbecile repug candidates.
In local campaigns we ran, we tied the taxes to behaviors. In other words, 'if we continue doing x, you can't avoid increasing taxes... we need to change x to y, saving $z in future taxes, while investing $a to make y happen.' Most people respect candidates who at least give them the dignity of being told what you want to do, why you want to do it, and how you'll get it done - even if it means a tax increase. posted 04/18/2008 at 09:10:35
The favorite sport of the repug turd machine is to parse and label things as "taxes." For example, both candidate's health care plans (I don't like either one - anything shorter than single-payer is a bandaid on a bullet wound) will be run by mccain as new taxes on the middle class. They'll be "lyars" and "flip-floppers." And wsj will be a vocal supporter of that crap.
Candidates need to offer much, much more detail to the public. That's the only way to turn around the discussion and mute the constant drone of taxes, taxes, flipflop, taxes, taxes from imbecile repug candidates.
In local campaigns we ran, we tied the taxes to behaviors. In other words, 'if we continue doing x, you can't avoid increasing taxes... we need to change x to y, saving $z in future taxes, while investing $a to make y happen.' Most people respect candidates who at least give them the dignity of being told what you want to do, why you want to do it, and how you'll get it done - even if it means a tax increase. posted 04/18/2008 at 09:10:35
Obama Going Negative? Mailer Hits Clinton On Trade
I've gotten 3 mailers in support of clinton in the last 2 weeks (I live in PA, outside of Philly). Each one is paid for by Emily's List, so it features a woman telling me why she is voting for hillary. I've seen 5 from Obama supporters. One was a 527, but I have to admit to not noting who paid for the others. We're getting bombarded. Fact is, all these things are going to be lost in the noise.
But as an Obama supporter, I have to say that I'd prefer he'd have hit her over the credit card bankruptcy vote and her reliance on PACs and lobbyists. He's emphasizing his refusal to accept their money and the "game" in mailers and tv ads, but the missing piece is to compare that to hillary's 'establishment' support. He doesn't need to go quoting a flimsy, retracted quote to return fire. He should/could have hit her with more solidly documented proof of her shortcomings. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:27:19
But as an Obama supporter, I have to say that I'd prefer he'd have hit her over the credit card bankruptcy vote and her reliance on PACs and lobbyists. He's emphasizing his refusal to accept their money and the "game" in mailers and tv ads, but the missing piece is to compare that to hillary's 'establishment' support. He doesn't need to go quoting a flimsy, retracted quote to return fire. He should/could have hit her with more solidly documented proof of her shortcomings. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:27:19
An Open Letter to Senator Lamar Alexander
Every repug "flat tax" proposal I've seen has been a back door for eliminating the Alternate Minimum and Capital Gains taxes. The AMT is removed by definition and capital gains are not considered "income," making it completely exempt.
In other words, a huge tax cut for the wealthiest of the country - especially CEOs paid in options and stocks. In fact, I'd be shocked if CEOs under a repug flat tax plan don't demand to be paid ENTIRELY in stocks and options so that they don't have to pay any taxes at all.
So prepare for that, Mr. Tuke - and best of luck to you! posted 04/17/2008 at 11:27:57
In other words, a huge tax cut for the wealthiest of the country - especially CEOs paid in options and stocks. In fact, I'd be shocked if CEOs under a repug flat tax plan don't demand to be paid ENTIRELY in stocks and options so that they don't have to pay any taxes at all.
So prepare for that, Mr. Tuke - and best of luck to you! posted 04/17/2008 at 11:27:57
What If ABC Held a Debate, but Forgot to Show Up?
Ma'am, with all due respect, there have been no positive reviews of any of the debate moderators or sponsoring news agencies during this campaign season. In fact, it's been one of the reasons I avoided watching the debates the last 12 months.
The persistently asserted gender victimization crap is truly as old and stale as it is normally inaccurate in the context of this unholy campaign. posted 04/17/2008 at 12:26:47
The persistently asserted gender victimization crap is truly as old and stale as it is normally inaccurate in the context of this unholy campaign. posted 04/17/2008 at 12:26:47
Yup, it was a miserable indictment of either the state of our country's crumbling intellectual capacity or the the msm's opinion of our country's intellectual capacity.
My "favorite" part was when gibson wanted to get Obama to say he'd lower the capital gains tax. "But if it increased revenues both times it was cut, why would you consider raising it?" I was screaming at the television, wishing Obama would say something like, "Moron, if we use your logic, then the highest revenues would be obtained by cutting it to 10%. Then applying it again, cut it to 5% and get more revenue. Then, using your logic again, boost revenue by dropping it to 0%."
As usual, Obama patiently, logically explained where the problem lies in the inequitable distribution of wealth in this country. But I would have loved to see at least one BRIEF, emotional repudiation of the debate's line of inquiry... take those two dopes to the woodshed... I think it would have resonated very well.
People with just a slightly open mind and some basic analytical skills can see through most of this crap. I think it's no coincidence that a large majority of highly educated people support Obama. Those who can't see the resentful, intellectual bottom-feeding that this insipid media targets are susceptible to the marginally believable veracity of hillary's fake populist positions. posted 04/17/2008 at 10:44:57
My "favorite" part was when gibson wanted to get Obama to say he'd lower the capital gains tax. "But if it increased revenues both times it was cut, why would you consider raising it?" I was screaming at the television, wishing Obama would say something like, "Moron, if we use your logic, then the highest revenues would be obtained by cutting it to 10%. Then applying it again, cut it to 5% and get more revenue. Then, using your logic again, boost revenue by dropping it to 0%."
As usual, Obama patiently, logically explained where the problem lies in the inequitable distribution of wealth in this country. But I would have loved to see at least one BRIEF, emotional repudiation of the debate's line of inquiry... take those two dopes to the woodshed... I think it would have resonated very well.
People with just a slightly open mind and some basic analytical skills can see through most of this crap. I think it's no coincidence that a large majority of highly educated people support Obama. Those who can't see the resentful, intellectual bottom-feeding that this insipid media targets are susceptible to the marginally believable veracity of hillary's fake populist positions. posted 04/17/2008 at 10:44:57
The Weather Underground False Debate
oh, bro... what you illogically equate to "preconceived notions" are assessments made as the result of observation and analysis of around 20 years of history, especially over the last 8 years. It's a process of fact-oriented, rational, and deliberative effort. clinton babbling her excruciatingly well-rehearsed script during a "debate" can't erase her record no matter how much you wish it could.
Good luck with that, genius. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:06:57
Good luck with that, genius. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:06:57
I deliberately avoided all the debates this year - until last night.
What I learned is that I can see why there are some people who love clinton. She is very convincing and if you didn't already understand that she's a secretive, lying corporatist carpet-bagger, you could easily believe that she actually cares about something other than her lust for power and "history."
I wanted to know how Obama would treat clinton's trail of lies and I wasn't surprised to see he let her off the hook. I recall a smirk on her face as he discussed how the media records everything they say or do and those words will be unfairly parsed. She truly understands the game as rove has played it. Does anyone recall hillary saying anything negative about mccain during the "debate?" posted 04/17/2008 at 07:21:46
What I learned is that I can see why there are some people who love clinton. She is very convincing and if you didn't already understand that she's a secretive, lying corporatist carpet-bagger, you could easily believe that she actually cares about something other than her lust for power and "history."
I wanted to know how Obama would treat clinton's trail of lies and I wasn't surprised to see he let her off the hook. I recall a smirk on her face as he discussed how the media records everything they say or do and those words will be unfairly parsed. She truly understands the game as rove has played it. Does anyone recall hillary saying anything negative about mccain during the "debate?" posted 04/17/2008 at 07:21:46
Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
Nice work. Unfortunately, it probably won't open the eyes that stay closed, though. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:33:28
Joe Lieberman Willing To Star At GOP Convention
Can CT recall this ass-hat? If so, get off your duffs and do us all a favor by fixing this problem you gave us! posted 04/16/2008 at 14:00:52
Popular Stories on HuffPost
Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man. He's a born-again Christian with two family...
Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live"
On Friday, Barack Obama publicly raised the possibility of helping Hillary Clinton pay...
It should come as no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has always been a screamer, but...
Today, May 10, marks the first day of what the Obama campaign is calling its "Vote For...
You may have thought your prom night went badly, but Marche Taylor,...
Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination...
Leave it to the tone deaf GOP to find a way of attaching themselves to this election...
As a lawyer might say (OK, I am one), I have no personal knowledge of whether John or...
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is most likely in a lot of hot...
At the same time that former West Wingers...
First of all, you moms are already Hot Chicks! We want you to embrace...
