• on a comment on Those who supported Hill... over 5 years ago

    Don't look now, but CNN has just released a new poll: Obama 49%, McCain 46%. (Hint: that's not especially good news). The usual bounce from clinching the nomination/victory speech must have gotten lost somewhere.

    Bottom line:

    1) It's the worst year imaginable for the GOP,

    2) Barak has just clinched the nomination, should be cresting, and

    3) The Republican nominee is a cross between Wilford Brimley and Colonel Sanders.

    And Senator Obama is in a statistical dead heat with that nominee. Did someone say the word, "LOSER"????

    By way of reference, John Kerry was up by +14 points at this point in 2004, Dukakis by +18 points in 1988.

    So think again about not trying to recruit HRC supporters. And definitely think again about going after Republican voters...that gives me the best laugh since I heard Obama talking about a tornado in Kansas that supposedly killed 10,000 people. (The actual death toll was 12).

  • I can't think of more effective Senator, or a better spokesperson for the Democratic Party. She's absolutely correct about Hillary winning the most populary votes. I think the enormous credibility and stature she carries--among Democrats of all stripes--is what's bugging so many Obama supporters.

  • comment on a post Those who supported Hill... over 5 years ago

    Anyone who was watching cable news on Tuesday has an idea of how "fair" this process was. The Democratic leadership had arranged for an hourly "drip-drip-drip" of superdelegates declaring for Obama, which CNN tabulated with a special call-out box. It really had a carnival feeling, which I suppose is appropriate.

    Since it was a week after Nancy Pelosi declared that "she would not allow this contest to proceed to the convention", we can guess who was behind this garbage. And who appointed her queen-shit of the Democratic Party, anyway? The only piece of legislation she's been able to get through the House is a "reform bill", that requires members to be standing if they accept a meal from a lobbyist. If she can't effectively lead in the House, why should we believe she can manage a nominating convention?

    And as to Michigan and Florida--sorry, but it's surreal for a party to have a 48-state nominating contest in the year 2008....especially when Barack apparently believes there are 57.

    The Democratic Party mantra became, "the rules are the rules"...with little conversation about "the voters". When I see them undertake a rules change which prevents a similar fiasco in the future, maybe I'll believe they are a serious party again. Message to Howard--the screamer--Dean: just keep it simple. Let every state hold their primary/caucus when they please (in other words, just tell Iowa and New Hampshire to fuck off). Aside from being a more principled and defendable approach, I think there's something a little more pragmatic about ensuring Michigan and Florida's participation in the process. As it stands, this nomination will always have an asterik next to it, much as W's victory in 2000.

  • on a comment on Those who supported Hill... over 5 years ago

    accorded some respect. Part of such a speech--by anyone worth their salt--is to rally the troops, and praise THEIR contribution. To let them know that they have been part of something worthwhile.

    Hillary did that, and some asshole on CNN labels it as "self-congratulatory". That's what we mean my media bias.

    For the flip side, you can go back to the VA primary, when Obama gave a victory speech that we've all heard over 600 times....media mediocrity Chris Mathews gushed: "I just felt a chill run up my leg". Such is what you get on cable news these days...

    As far as being able to take the heat: I hope Barack is ready for the GOP slime machine....they are going to beat him like a rented mule. His self-described "spiritual advisor" shrieking "God Damned America" is not something middle America is going to buy into, trust me. It doesn't help that during the "brilliant" campaign we keep hearing he ran, he told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that "Rev. Wright is a legitimate campaign issue" I'm sure the Republicans were glad to hear him say that.

    So we'll soon see who is able to take heat. People will soon realize that in that department, Hillary is like a rock compared to "Barry".

  • comment on a post Those who supported Hill... over 5 years ago

    CNN continued the disrespect of Hillary yesterday, even after a magnanimous and gracious speech. Very few noted that in retrospect, it was wise for her to give the speech yesterday instead of Tuesday, while the media was partying and celebrating the Obama win.

    Wolf Blitzer had the nerve to ask a guest, "how will Obama win all those women who supported Hillary Clinton?" I'm a guy who supported Hillary, as she marshalled a broad and winning (popular vote-wise) coalition. The notion that this was confined to one demographic is totally divorced from reality. But that's OK...two months ago, Wolf had us pegged as the "Wal-Mart" Democrats. Just curious what he really believes....

    In the evening segment, some guy named Rick Sanchez complained that he heard three different speeches from Hillary, one very "self-congratulatory". Apparently, this guy has never heard a speech with sub-themes, expressing different ideas??? I've seen him on CNN before, and would suggest they keep him on the Saturday evening beat...definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

  • on a comment on Leaving the church. UPDATED over 5 years ago

    Barack Obama has not had to undergo any negative attacks, either from opponents or a fawning media. CNN had a carnival like atmosphere on Tuesday, as media greats like Gloria Borger and Jeffrey Tobin gushed about Barack's greatness.

    In the meantime, CNN has just released a new poll: Obama 49%, McCain 46%. (Hint: that's not especially good news). The usual bounce from clinching the nomination/victory speech must have gotten lost somewhere.

    Bottom line:

    1. It's the worst year imaginable for the GOP,
    2. Barak has just clinched the nomination, should be cresting, and
    3. The Republican nominee is a cross between Wilford Brimley and Colonel Sanders.

    And Senator Obama is in a statistical dead heat with that nominee. Did someone say the word, "LOSER"????

    By way of reference, John Kerry was up by +14 points at this point in 2004, Dukakis by +18 points in 1988.

    Good luck....you'll need it.

  • on a comment on Leaving the church. UPDATED over 5 years ago

    I share your frustration. I think part of the divide between Obama folks and Clintonistas is that there's more freedom of thought among Clinton people. Sometimes, both she and Bill have irritated me, but on balance, I think they're visionaries and outstanding public servants. But I've had no problem criticizing them when they had it coming.

    Conversely, I've never heard an Obama supporter cite or admit to any flaws in their candidate. Never. And I know/have friendships with quite a few. Having left the Catholic Church and its authoritarian rule several years ago, I could never survive in Obama-land.

    That's also why they are baffled by the idea that some Clinton supporters will follow HRC and support Obama, while others do their own thing. The monolithic thought complex that governs Obama-land has no place among Clintonistas. We live according to the dictates of our own individual consciences.

  • on a comment on Leaving the church. UPDATED over 5 years ago

    I've supported the Clintons for years, and am still incredulous at the way they've been treated in this campaign. The GOP is one extreme in practicing veneration of their ex-Prez's; Dems are the other extreme in trashing their group.

    That said, the #2 spot is a career-killer; just ask John Edwards, Sarge Shriver, or any number of people who have taken it on. Bush Sr. on the GOP aide is the rare exception.

    In the meantime, CNN just released a new poll: Obama 49%, McCain 46%. (Hint: that's not especially good news). The usual bounce from clinching the nomination/victory speech must have gotten lost somewhere.

    Bottom line:
    It's the worst year imaginable for the GOP,
    Barak has just clinched the nomination, should be cresting, and
    The Republican nominee is a cross between Wilford Brimley and Colonel Sanders.

    And Barak is in a dead heat with that nominee. Did I hear the word, "LOSER"????

    So no, I don't want Hillary on this ticket. It's going down in flames. I'm praying that she doesn't get tapped, because once Obama has gotten stomped, all the Obam-orons will blame the loss on who else--the Clintons.

  • BJJ stands for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (for some of us, politics/activism is just one component of our lives; we do other stuff as well)

    BJJ involves submission fighting and cage matches, usually with NHB rules. Nothing to do with what you suggest.

    But given Barack's one-time friendship with a preacher (no, not Rev.Wright, this time) who claims to have had success offering "the cure" for gay people, I'm not surprised to receive a homphobic question.

  • comment on a post Clinton Speech Thread over 5 years ago

    All this good feeling is a bit false, coming after Bill and Hillary Clinton have been trashed for over a year. I guess the best word to describe a lot of us Hillary supporters is....well...bitter. But not, as "Michelle" described America down in SC, "downright mean"

  • comment on a post Leaving the church. UPDATED over 5 years ago

    There has been a decades-old war in the Democratic Party between center and left, and this year is no exception. McCarthy-Humphrey, Carter-Kennedy, and so on through the years. This year, with two "larger-than-life" candidates--one woman, the other black--it was more highly charged and combustible than ever.

    That said, I agree with the writer, and feel that the time may be right for many centrists to leave the party---but based on prinicple, not personalities.

    Free Trade is my own #1 priority. It pains me to see the party I joined up with in 1988, now siding with the likes of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan on this issue. No, I don't think NAFTA was a mistake...but I do think that Nancy Pelosi torpedoing the Colombia Pact was unforgivable. That country has done just about everything we've asked it to do, and we just thumbed our noses at them to appease the bosses in Big Labor. The losers will be working people at companies like John Deere, who export to growth economies like Brazil and Chile.

    "Blaming American First" doesn't thrill centrists either. Most of us believe that Iraq was a moral, financial, and strategic blunder of epic proportions...but we are sickened when groups like moveon.org run ads such as "General Betray-us", trashing a good man who was served honorably in the military.

    And as believers that an activist government can be an agent for good in people's lives, we value competence, and believe that knowledge/expertise is power. We are disgusted by W's ignorance on fundamentals ("Sunnis? Shiites? I thought you told me they were Muslims in Iraq!") but we find Senator Obama's grasp of the issues equally worrisome. The dustup over NAFTA was alarming, when he managed to raise the ire of the Canadians. David Emerson, Canadian Foreign Trade Minister, wrily remarked in March:
    "Knowledgeable observers should inform Mr. Obama that we are the largest supplier of energy to the United States"
    This seemed eerily like so many times when W has managed to alientate our traditional allies; Senator Obama's ignorance of large matters like NAFTA and Capital Gains Taxes is extremely troubling.

    Each voter has to make up their own mind how they will vote this Fall. My disenchantment with the Party on these types of issues began in 2004, but given the choice of W and John Kerry, the lesser of two evils was Kerry. This cycle, I will vote for McCain, who is enthusiastically for free trade and believes that even with its flaws, this is still a good and great country.

  • The Dow Transports are up double digits this year, even as the cost of energy has soared. These indices are now moving in tandem---not inversely as has been the case in the past. That's the whole point of this hyper-inflation; e.g., steel producers are passing on the increased cost of coal to end users. And it's not impacting the steel business one whit...look at how well US Steel (X) and Nucor (NUE) are performing this year. So steel exports are continuing to rise; in fact, they're through the roof.

    Obama has only a feeble grasp of these types of things. The old notion of the executive who knows little about details, but just goes out and finds people who does, kind of went out with Ronald Reagan; it's an outdated and discredited model. In the new economy, the great executives--e.g., Rex Tillerson, Mike Bloomberg--are those who know the details of their operation inside and out. In that vein, Obama is the Willy Loman ("personality wins the day!")of politics. The new economy is just too complex for those kinds of bullshitters.

    In politics and winning elections, power derives from charisma, giving great speeches, etc. In governing, it comes from knowledge.

  • in the unlikely event he is elected. That would be painful; watching the President of the United States get tutored in economics by the Fed chairman. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

  • comment on a post Oil Prices and Stagflation: The Real Issue over 5 years ago

    Your diary gives a fairly good outline of some of our nation's economic problems. Unfortunately, like Senator's Obama's campaign, it is notably lacking in specifics in terms of remedies.

    The most serious problem we face is the hyper-inflation of commodities, given the rapid growth of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies. The US is not the only country now vying for scarce resources.

    People like Sen.Obama--and unfortunately, Sen.Clinton--who spend their time trashing free trade and NAFTA, just don't get it. Globalization is here; those who think they can turn back the clock and re-open all those closed factories are politicians of the past, not of change.

    Like many, I've been dismayed by W's ignorance of specifics when it comes to fundamental policy issues. But Senator Obama displays the same kind of ignorance, and that is equally worrisome. Watching Charlie Gibson explain to him how the Capital Gains Tax works--during the infamous ABC debate--was painful and embarrassing. And Obama always has the same reaction: he just gets this befuddled look on his face, and starts mumbling about something else (usually hope and change).

    Bottom line: W has given us eight years of the amateur hour...Barack Obama appears destined to give us more of the same.

  • Tom de Lay, Dick Armey, and Jerry Falwell spent the better part of the 1990's harrassing the Clintons, with all kinds of bombastic charges. My favorite was the rumor Falwell spread, claiming that they regularly ran drugs and had people murdered down in Arkansas.

    I've said from the beginning of this year's campaign that the Obama people must be taking lessons from Tom deLay. The stuff they dished out was far worse than anything that ever came from "the hammer", but bore an eerie resemblance to it.

    So now you all have found each other; have fun, because you deserve each other. Not sure how Tom will get along with "Father" Pfleger, but with all of Pfleger's Hillary-hate, they'll probably become fast friends!

    And be careful: remember, there's no honor among thieves.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads