• Bornagaindem. Republican lite is still Republican.
     
  • comment on a post I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change over 6 years ago

    Obama makes comments which are truly non-progressive and libertarian, and Orton jumps through rhetorical hoops to somehow, some way, re-jigger them so it looks like Obama is (still) progressive. Read again what Obama said, absorb it, then go read Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal and read the refutation of  Obama's argument--the argument which says that technology, infrastructure, and better education are the problems and fixing them is the solution.  

    Obama is telling you in no uncertain terms he will not fight for liberalism, for progressivism, for regulation (see his anodyne housing crisis "solutions").  Every one of his economic policies involves accommodation to the status quo, not confrontation.  

    Have you thought of a career as a contortionist?  

  • comment on a post Live thread at the RBC over 6 years ago

    48 states--he's already given away his biases

  • comment on a post Hillary Clinton's General Election Strength over 6 years ago

    If you're going to make a front-page post on this, please make it a little more substantive. To not mention Paul Maslin's or Paul Lukasiak's recent detailed non-poll-based electoral map analyses or Hominid Views' Monte Carlo simulations, is well...lazy and leads to the kind of superficial discussion you see in many of the posts above.  As one of the few serious commenters mentioned above, even Obama supporter Poblano is showing Clinton besting Obama in the GE.  

    Taken together, these studies are grim reading, whether you are for Obama or not. Considering that the superdelegates and the GE are hanging in the balance and that some Republicans are actually contemplating a blowout, I would ask that you look at all of them and offer us some conclusions of your own.

    (Sorry about no links.  Lukasiak and Maslin can be found via Corrente. Hominid's got his own site. Poblano's over on kos)

  • comment on a post Deal with defeat over 6 years ago

    an earlier poster, Jerome. Comments here are now virtual kos klones--unless you start weeding out trolls at a higher rate, your comments section is going to be worthless.  This is one of the few Obama-free sanctuaries in the blogoshpere, and it's getting swamped by the obama lumpen.  Couldn't you just let them all post on Singer's blog, but not yours? I've noticed a similar diminution in the quality of the arguments to eriposte's blogs.  Everything is ad hominem, nothing speaks to the post.  

    For those of you still quivering over "charges of racism" and who are still interested in why Obama is a doomed candidate in the fall, check out Paul Lukasiak's recent analysis of head-to-head matchups of the 3 candidates in key states in the GE.  Maybe if you see the data in the form of numbers, you'll leave your vapors over racism at the door.  (sorry , don't have the link, think it was both at left coaster and corrente).

  • on a comment on Deal with defeat over 6 years ago

    we don't need this becoming another kos.

  • on a comment on Deal with defeat over 6 years ago

    amen.

  • on a comment on Deal with defeat over 6 years ago

    with questions like "motorized goalposts".  trust us, they'll love you there.

  • on a comment on Taking in NC & IN over 6 years ago

    that she said MI doesn't count, without putting it in context.

    http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858  10/11/07

    (caller Q)

    HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH's status.  I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot...(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)...But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn't in my view meaningful, but I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it.

    ( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)

    HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008.  I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I'm not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, "Goodbye, Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January, 2009.

    (Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?

    HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.

  • on a comment on Clinton's new ad in NC and IN over 6 years ago

    This is still one of the few blogs on the net providing safe haven from OFB syndrome.

    I read somewhere that gas prices during Bush's presidency moved in lockstep with his popularity.  You can debate economic theory and it's ensuing "chaos" (we're talking the summer months here, guys!), or you can focus on what is dumbass politics or not.

  • on a comment on Clinton's new ad in NC and IN over 6 years ago

    is "congressional superdelegates"--that still leaves over 300 uncommitted.  Careful what you read--esp. from Republicans.

  • on a comment on A Modest Proposal over 6 years ago

    Just the opposite. The problem is that Obama supporters have been selectively quoting from this interview in comment threads and citing it as proof of her perfidy.  Heres the whole quote from her NHPR interview 10/11/07

    http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

       (caller Q)

       HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH's status. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot...(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)...But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn't in my view meaningful, but I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it.

       ( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)

       HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008. I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I'm not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, "Goodbye, Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January, 2009.

       (Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?

       HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.

  • on a comment on The Itch over 6 years ago

    And how about today?  "in addition to the kitchen sink, she's throwing the china at me, and the buffet?"  An accidental choice of words? No misogyny here?  Would McCain be throwing the china at him?

  • comment on a post The Itch over 6 years ago

    "Giving her the finger just doesn't fit into any pattern of behavior from him,"

    Really, Todd? Obama has exhibited a puerile, mysoginistic pattern of behavior from the beginning of his campaign.  The flipping off (curious that the Jay-Z song makes specific reference to the gesture)is merely one more demonstration of a CONSISTENT pattern of denigrating and disrespecting Clinton in the most adolescent displays.  

    Remember, this is a man who sees no problem sitting in a church along with his daughters watching a man who dry humped on stage and says, "God is sick of this shit." (No, maybe he didn't witness those things, but he knows he Wright did them, and he still went).  Public displays of profanity and profane gestures are not out of bounds for him.  The brushing off shoulders alone is unacceptable behavior in a presidential candidate, (on the order of McCain's tacit acceptance of the "bitch" remark. ) It is dismissive and arrogantAnd and of a piece with his relentless ad hominem drumbeat of criticisms of Clinton, among them:

    "Who does she think she is, Annie Oakley?"

    "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

    "Sometimes the claws come out"

    "Periodically , when she'd in a bad mood, she lashes out"

    "She once asked whether she should be baking cookies"

    "She is a calculating, poll-driven, politician"

  • And eriposte has this list, in detail at http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 12366.php

    Here's a summary:

    1. Attacks on President Clinton's sex life (a longtime staple of Republican politics and the corporate media) and attempts to tie that to Sen. Clinton's electability

    2. Attacks on Sen. Clinton for the crookedness of a fundraiser (who also happened to be Sen. Obama's fundraiser) - another staple of Republican politics and the corporate media

    3. Caricaturing and Attacking Sen. Clinton using the standard right-wing attack memes: Her "Negatives", "Divisiveness", Alleged Inability to Work with Republicans

    4. Attacks on Sen. Clinton Using False or Unsubstantiated Stories from Right Wing Fraudsters Matt Drudge and Robert Novak

    5. Borderline Racist Attack Against Sen. Clinton

    6. Borderline Sexist Attacks Against Sen. Clinton - long a comfort zone for Republicans and their surrogates in the media

    7. False Portrayal of Sen. Clinton as a liar on Social Security using the talking point that the GOP used against Al Gore in 2000

    8. False Attacks on Sen. Clinton's stance on Social Security using Right-wing "Crisis" Rhetoric

    9. False Attacks on Sen. Clinton's Healthcare plan using GOP/Harry-and-Louise-Type Rhetoric and Ads

    10. Despicable Smear Attacks Against Sen. Clinton and President Clinton Portraying Them as Race-Baiters or Racists - perhaps their biggest gift to the corporate media and GOP

    11. Attacking via Caricature, Sen. Clinton's Role of First Lady, another GOP favorite

    12. Attacking Sen. Clinton as Unprincipled and Calculating, another GOP favorite

    13. Attacking Sen. Clinton as Someone who would Say or Do Anything to get Elected, another massive gift to the GOP

    14. Falsely Attacking Sen. Clinton as One of the Most Secretive Politicians Ever - another GOP favorite

    15. Attacks on the Clinton Presidency Sometimes Using Completely False Claims

Diaries

Advertise Blogads