[blockquote]"If I were a crack cable news programmer I'm sure I'd learn something from all of this."[/blockquote]
Yes, but if he were a crack cable news programmer, what he'd learn from this is that he clearly needs to shill harder for the Republican candidates. Making sure to call them "regal" and contrast that directly with the Dem field was a good start, but surely we can come up with some more stories about Edwards' hair. And they can surely point out that Clinton is a woman and Obama is black in a few more subtly disparraging ways. And isn't it about time for a McCain bio-pic about his heroic days as a soldier? And maybe another "9/11" hagiography for Rudy?
Because Stephanie is a filthy baby-killing, anti-Christian disgusting whore who's burning in Hell and deserved to die! That's what the wingnut Pied Pipers will be saying, and it's what all the rest will be thinking. They want Stephanie to die. They think she deserves to die. For being a woman. For having sex. For rejecting a man's seed. For having the temerity to think she's anything but a servant to the men who own her body.
I wish Richardson could get some traction. If this were a resume contest, he'd be the next President, without question. And his leadership on this issue is important. Is there a way we can toss the field into a blender and poor out a candidate smoothie that combines the best of all of them (and leaves out some of the questionable bits).
So you don't want leaders who promote civil rights? The priviledged majority never wants to let the rest of society into the fold. If that's truly your position, I have no idea what you're doing on a progressive political blog, but your statement in support of universal health care and an end to the Iraq occupation suggest that you were simply hasty with your words.
Pure democracy is nothing but another form of tyrrany, and must be constrained in defense of the rights of the minority.
1) They'll slant it. Not blatantly, but enough to cast all the Dems in a bad light.
2) During the general election, they'll be able to claim, "Of course we're fair and balanced, we hosted the Democratic primary debate. So when we tell you that Obama will let Osama kill your dear old Aunt Millie (Obama/Osama - those sound a like, think that's a coincidence?), you can go down and buy Millie's headstone right now, or you can vote for a Republican."
The loathsome rabble-rousing bigot might not speak for most rank and file Christians, but he's right on par for the hierarchy. It's not surprising that they didn't condemn him.
This is, after all, the same group that destroyed liberation theology, protected (and even promoted) pedophile priests, blatantly attacked John Kerry in hypocritical violation of the tax code, and has long promoted anti-Semitism.
Well, Donohue got his scalp, Amanda Marcotte resigned today. Edwards accepted that. Given his rather weak defense of the hire and his expressions of having been offended by their words, I'm not terribly surprised.
So it would appear that walking back from that support would be entirely appropriate.
The Catholicism of liberation theology and social justice may well be the Catholicism that you and Thomas are proud of. But it's not the Catholicism practiced by the Catholic church. The Catholic church (the institution and heirarchy) is about right-wing politics, misogyny, money and power. If that's not the Catholicism that you're proud of, it's not the fault of Marcotte or McEwen for pointing it out, criticizing it, or even mocking it.
It's certainly dirty politics, but on a certain level I can't blame them. They pass some rules limiting campaign contributions, and all of a sudden here's this guy who can outspend them all without ever taking a single contribution. Not exactly the level playing field that campaign finance laws are supposedly trying to provide.
There's a lot long with the way we run elections in this country, but I think allowing candidates to self fund is a big part of it. Why, exactly, should a candidate be allowed to contribute more to their campaign organization than the same amount as any other citizen can contribute?
Such a rule would at least have the beneficial effect of keeping party insiders from messing around in candidate recruitment and primaries just so they can get a self-funding candidate.
Assume for a moment that by sending a major American city into a panic, shutting down roads, and spending a million dollars of taxpayer money on their own paranoia the authorities in Boston were just being prudent and responsible. It would then follow that the authorities in Chicago, Los Angeles, Austin, and 7 other major US cities were acting irresponsibly by not losing their fucking minds at the same advertisements. Is that really the position that Boston wants to stake out? That they're right, and everybody else is just incompetent or careless?
It's patently ridiculous that a tiny minority of voters in a small state have so much influence on who gets to run for President. It's undemocratic and it just needs to stop. Failing a massive shift in media behavior and voting patterns, that means a change to how primaries are conducted. Federal regulations mandating a primary schedule (possibly on a rotating basis) for Presidential elections need to be enacted.
I also believe that having an annointed candidate so early (in February, for crying out loud) is detrimental to the party. A contested primary is free media in the months leading up to the convention, putting Democratic ideas and politicians in voters' living rooms every night for months.
Biden's running for President, and has his own bill. The radio just said that his bill had been passed out of comittee, with a vote from its cosponsor, Hagel. It's just political bullshit. Biden wants his name on it, and Hagel wants his name on it, so they voted against Dodd's version.
I didn't watch the speech. That smirking fucker makes me want to break things when he speaks. But I caught a bit of the commentary afterwards, and it was so empty and vapid that it made my brain hurt. Tim Russert got on national TV and said that now, with the escalation, the next 6 months would be "dead serious." How utterly detatched from reality do you have to be to say something like that? It wasn't "dead serious" before? 3000 US soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands are wounded. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis are dead and wounded! And what, Tim? Was it a game before now? A joke? Until President Codpiece decided to kill thousands more people, and it just suddenly became serious? I hate these people so bad.