• comment on a post Huge Majority Says The Debate Should Go On over 5 years ago

    Doesn't McCain have somebody that he believes is eminently prepared to step in for the highest office in the land?  Surely she could cover a debate.

    SEND SARAH PALIN!

    Tell me that doesn't sound viral to you.

  • on a comment on $10 Million over 5 years ago

    If you're concerned about outspending your opponent and still losing being a sign of weakness, maybe you shouldn't be looking away from Pennsylvania just yet.  After all, Obama outspent Clinton drastically there -- no surprise, he had more money.  "Narrowing the gap" to "only" a ten point loss is a pretty tough victory claim.

  • on a comment on $10 Million over 5 years ago

    Way to post an entire paragraph to get one word out of her that could be considered derogatory.

    Pretty much pales in comparison to your blanket throwing of the 45%+ Clinton supporters in the Democratic party under the bus.

  • comment on a post Obama 5-1 over Hillary among Young Voters? over 6 years ago

    Fifty-what?

    Exit polls have 17-29ers at 22% so far.  Does that age demographic take longer to leave the polling site?

  • Second.  I clearly can't count.

    Still not sure what losing a vote has to do with a metaphor on dictators.  Pretty sure everybody loses votes, dictator or not.  The dictator issue probably has much more to do with what you do after that happens.

  • So did Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

    For that matter, if you're going with popular vote, so did George W. Bush.

    So did what I would imagine would be hundreds of people across history that ran, lost, and ran again.

    Did you have a point with this, or did you just want to be the first to Godwin the comments thread?

  • Which would probably tell you something about the accuracy of how he's being depicted in American media.

    I would imagine the truth, as it does so often, lies somewhere in the middle.

  • on a comment on Debate Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Hating on academics and the related anti-intellectualism message got Bush reelected against an intellectual.  I'm not sure the negative frame you name really exists in quite the way that you put it forward.  It sure as hell should -- but I think that's more a point of the Democratic paradigm than a generalized meme.

  • on a comment on Debate Open Thread over 6 years ago

    He was on the intelligence committee.  He got to hear the report.

    I can't blame Obama for not criticizing him on that -- after all, he's perfectly aware that not having been in the Senate at the time, he didn't even have a say in the first place.

    What, is this the Obama strategy -- he talks about unity and working together, and his devotees do the mudslinging?

    I like Obama's message.  I would recommend people not ruin it with biased input.

  • on a comment on Debate Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Crucial.

    And yes, it's probably easier for a Senator who didn't have to make the choice to criticize others.  Particularly one from a predominantly blue area, as opposed to one from a red state.  But seeing as he wasn't there, that rings a bit hollow.

  • on a comment on Debate Open Thread over 6 years ago

    OK, it was too nifty not to mention, and I wanted to give MyDD credit since I wasn't the one that found it, so I linked over anyway.  :-)  If that's a problem, let me know and I'll pull it.

  • comment on a post Debate Open Thread over 6 years ago

    Oh, my goodness, I heart that clock graph.  I'm going to be liveblogging over at The Texas Blue; mind if I link over?

  • on a comment on Step Up, Religious Left over 7 years ago

    "...an (ostensible) member of the progressive netroots has no excuse for not knowing better than to 'argue' like that."

    Perhaps not.  Perhaps the religious left is not particularly good at defending themselves from attacks.  We know from Chris' posted stats that their representation in the netroots is not close to proportional to their representation in the party, so perhaps unfamiliarity with the MO of internet activism plays a part in it.

    But perhaps it is because they, whose devotion to their religion has had to by necessity be tempered in the flame of opposition from both sides of the spectrum (after all, let's be honest; Penalver's commentary is not very far off the mark when he says that "the blog posts mentioned in the story did speak of a deep-seated hostility to the Church as an institution"), tend to associate themselves particularly strongly with their religion, and consider themselves to be Catholic progressives, not progressives who are Catholic -- and the Christian message does not jive with attacking people, even those who have attacked you.  Maybe that is a weak position in your eyes -- and I can definitely understand how you would think that -- but one has to admire both the adherence to the fundamental "golden rule" values embodied in the difficult call for the real-world action of "turning the other cheek," as well as the pragmaticism -- not lost on Christian progressives -- of the long-term results of that action, which Ghandi so eloquently encapsulated in "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

  • on a comment on Democratic Response Thread over 7 years ago

    It was excellent.  I put up an English translation of Becerra's speech up on The Texas Blue.

    Where did the Spanish transcript above come from, BTW?  I saw the link to Webb's response in the post, but couldn't find the link to Becerra's.  And I know I searched high and low for that sucker before I started doing the translation.  Ended up having to do it straight from the video.  That was a pain.

  • on a comment on 50 State Blog Network over 7 years ago

    You're right!  We don't!  That mistake will be fixed by the next time you see the site.

    Though it would be nice to have a link back... :-)

Diaries

Advertise Blogads