• They're keeping their powder dry, and planning to spend a hundred zillion dollars during the last 48 hours of the campaign.

    a.k.a.

    excellent news .... FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!

  • I like erring on the side of hope, but I can't disagree too strongly with your take either.  Both your and Josh's interpretations are defensible (and neither is "trollish"; sheesh, from some of these ratings, "troll" is becoming the new "that is, I think I disagree").  

  • on a comment on Live Thread IV at the RBC over 6 years ago

    I mojo-rated it for you.  I agree that it's absurd for Jerome to criticize Brazile's eye-rolling while not criticizing Ickes's far more harmful words, which do nothing to unify the party (and are massively hypocritical given his statements about MI earlier in the primary).  

    I wouldn't go so far as to accuse Jerome of being a "hack", but I believe it's fair to call him out on his double standards, hence my mojo-rating.

    Obama and Clinton are both perfectly fine candidates, but only one can win the primary, and it's going to be Obama.  Time to start work on getting him elected and stop the divisive drama.

  • on a comment on Missed opportunity by Obama over 6 years ago

    Yes, double standard, exactly.

    Shouldn't Hillary be doing some stuff to heal the rift too?  If Jerome has pointed that out, I've missed it.

  • comment on a post Clinton Steps Back over 6 years ago

    I take Hillary at her word.  I don't believe she had an ill intentions at all.  It was just a dumb choice of words, like George Romney's "brainwashing" comment in 1968.

    But it was also a super-dumb example, because in 1968 the party was divided, and we did lose.

  • She's gonna have a whole group of people (McAuliffe, etc.) chomping at the bit to do stuff, and I'm not at all sure these people are going to be willing/able to read from the same page as Obama's people.

    Could have head-butting between Clinton and Obama camps, which will be a distraction.

  • Great post, nice summary of pro's and con's.

    The "staying in the background" aka "too many cooks" thing is the main issue I have with Hillary as VP.  OTOH, you're quite right that she has shown she can chill out when necessary.  That's a pretty good rebuttal.

    I don't know what effect she'd have on the ticket.  I don't really buy the argument that she'd mobilize Republicans any more than they're gonna try and mobilize.  She's polarizing only because she's been on the scene for awhile as a prominent Democrat.  The Republican game is to demonize any Dem and make them seem "polarizing".  So, I'm skeptical that she'd turn a lot of people off, especially because she polls about as well as Obama.  Would she add to the ticket?  Sure, as would Edwards, Richardson, Sebelius, Napolitano, Webb, etc.

    I think she's great (and I support Obama, but I think they're both very strong candidates, which is why it's been so close).  So if Obama feels like he can work with her, and she is able to be a team player and let Obama be Pres and then have her shot in '16, that would be peachy.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads