Not a true "diary" per se, but...

When I get sent an anonymous message telling me I am using strong language...who do I respond to, in order to tell them to go stuff themselves?


Just wondering.

There's more...

Question to Clinton AND Obama supporters

I am writing this diary in response to the other diary which asks a question of Clinton supporters: what is her path to the nomination ?

A better question is: what is the path to being a successful President ?

After all, your sole interest is in seeing a good government in the 2009-2017 time period, not in who wins the democratic nomination (the latter should only be one step to the former; but if you cannot get to the former, then the latter is meaningless).  And at this point, I am afraid, neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama appear to have a realistic chance of winning a "governing majority" in the fall.

In Sen. Obama's case, his coalition is too narrow ~ based almost solely on blacks and latte liberals; he is losing to Sen. Clinton amongst latinos, asians and whites.  In Sen. Clinton's case, her coalition is also fairly narrow (albeit somewhat broader than Sen. Obama's).  She is getting little or no support from blacks, and she will lose the overall white vote in the fall (democrats always lose the white vote).  Neither candidate has been able to win over the other candidate's supporters.

Even if they win with such demographics, such a narrow demographic support will result in a weak President.

And so, what is your candidate's path to being a successful President ?

There's more...

Sincere tax question... any sincere responses?

I've been unmoved by the tax return issue for a while. I'm sure there will be plenty in Hillary's 2000-2007 returns to work as fodder for Oppo researchers and the like, but here's what I'd really like to hear from some of Clinton's supporters...

(Sincerly, not a bashing, not trying to rally Obama supporters to bash... this is a question about politics...)

Why drag this out? She's given enough promises to release them that she'll have to at some point. Wouldn't sooner be better then later?

They're certainly readily available -- with the kind of money she and Bill now have, plus their public roles, they must have these papers very well organized by lots of well-paid accountants.

Why let this even become an issue? Since it was used against Lazio, sooner or later she had to realize it would come up. And after loaning her campaign money, it's fair game.

Why turn it into a "Obama's not transparent either" issue? It's a poor comparison, because now that his tax returns are out, it just makes the news into her still NOT releasing their returns.

Why pretend it doesn't matter? The FEC requires campaigns release all their data so that voter know where the influence is. If candidates can use their own money, the source of that matters too. As an Obama supporter, I'm more interested in his returns, because of how it could cause me to question my support.

Why not release it last week, esp. Friday, when it would have been lost in the Wright controversy, or easter, or forgotten in the month+ left until PA votes?

Is there any logic other than "hiding something?" I don't want to assume that, but it truly defies campaign logic as I understand it.

Even though Obama made reference to Wright on occasion, his quiet denials were lost in the volume of those video clips. I imagine if he'd been more pro-active, this could have been lessened.

It was supposed to be a rookie mistake on Obama's part -- but really, the Clintons and their staff truly know better.

I just don't understand. Does anyone here who does want to share?

There's more...

Some questions, for a bit of understanding?

I have a couple of questions for the Hillary supporters. I am hoping for well reasoned arguments and data that could be confirmed.

This is not a concern troll diary. I really do want to hear peoples thoughts on this.

Now let me tell you what I see. Hillary Clinton could have had this nomination easily if she had planned a 50 states strategy of her own. She had the organization, she had the money. But she has not succeeded so far. I would like to understand why. And I am hoping you kind folks could help

There's more...

Pressuring Dems on Presidential Powers

If you thought that eventually common Americans would rise up in protest at Bush's totalitarian power-grabs, think again. "Respectable People" think everything's O.K. because the government would never use those powers of the King-President against them, only against those awful terr'ists. Independent Institute fellow Robert Higgs recently attended a discussion in St. Louis which opened his eyes somewhat:
My expressions of disapproval in regard to the government's recent invasions of liberties, in particular, elicited expressions of stunned disbelief. I had said that the government's announced claim is that the president may, at his sole pleasure, arrest, incarcerate, and punish, even put to death, anyone he describes as a terrorist, wholly denying due process of law to the accused terrorist. One lady adamantly insisted that I say exactly whose rights had actually been so violated. When I replied that the leading case concerns a U.S. citizen named Jose Padilla, I thought she might expire from apoplexy. No sooner had I uttered Padilla's name than she half shouted, half sputtered indignantly "a terrorist!""How do we know," I replied, "if he does not receive due process of law? Are we to accept the government's claims solely on its officials' say-so?" Well, for this lady and for most of the others in the room, of course, we were to accept all such claims on the government's say-so. These respectables are simply incapable of imagining that the government they so blindly and enthusiastically support might do anything to harm THEM or, by extension, any other similarly respectable persons in the United States - clearly, the only people who matter.
This kind of "us and them" myopia, so carefully fostered by Rovian fearmongering, is why although I respect his writing greatly I think for once Glenn Greenwald is on the wrong track when it comes to his explanation for the Great Democrat Wimp-Out on the nomination of General Hayden as CIA director - and on just about every other issue connected to the rise of the King-President. Glenn believes that the Dems are simply used to operating "from a place of fear and excess caution" and will continue to do so even though they (subtext) know they should speak up. He believes that Dems on the Hill think they have a comfort zone now and can think to themselves:

There's more...


Advertise Blogads