• was complete ratings abuse.

  • Unless something has changed this past year in terms of his résumé, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Do you know what I'm talking about? Tip: his FP history.

  • Experience is not the positions you've taken as much as the things you've done. So, if we're going to talk about résumés, all I'm saying is we should quit kidding ourselves about who's inexperienced and get back to issues.

  • I completely agree with you, and I too agree that Palin's experience is about on par with Obama's. It's immensely silly how the author of this diary lists Obama's FP credentials as a "Anti Iraq war speech" and then something about judgment and then goes onto say that Palin's is Nil. Umm, Obama44 just said that Obama's FP experience is a speech. That's... not really that much with which to go out and claim that someone else is a danger to America.

    Actually, Obama's FP experience is a little more than  "judgment." He did author the African AIDS bill, which is something. But still, that doesn't pass the pot/kettle test on FP. Obama's campaign has been about offering a new perspective based on his instincts and his character. Attacking people as inexperienced really undercuts that kind of self-made, "change is good" argument, imho. Attack Palin on issues, for chrissakes people.

  • Also, Alaska (as noted elsewhere on the site) has a big fund that props up the economy by metering it out to its citizens. This is essentially socialism.

    Alaska has a very difficult infrastructure issue and economy. There's something to be said about being a governor of a state that is constantly struggling with infrastructure problems like this country as a whole will be in the coming years. IIRC, Alaska's taxes are high because of the cost of getting goods and services there. But to say it's socialism to mete out essential services that the states need is a little much. California taxes billion-dollar Google stock sales and metes out block grants essential to its way of life, such as for firefighting and earthquake preparedness. Wyoming metes out water subsidies as a result of taxing its major business interests. What's the difference?

  • on a comment on Palin? Yikes! over 5 years ago

    Are you saying someone who has never been to Europe in his adult life before 2006 and whose major foreign policy contribution to date has been authoring an AIDS bill honestly has a right to say that Sarah Palin is too inexperienced on foreign policy and a threat to the US as VP?

  • on a comment on Palin? Yikes! over 5 years ago

    I'm actually one of those people who are worried about the kind of arrogance that got Bush elected. I agree with most of Obama's policies, but I don't agree with bullshit like criticizing Palin for being  inexperienced on foreign policy when last I checked Obama has no basis whatsoever to be judgmental in that regard.

  • comment on a post Palin? Yikes! over 5 years ago

    It's disturbing to me that the Obama campaign immediately came out and criticized McCain for not picking someone with foreign policy experience. A little bit of mindfulness about glass houses is in order.

  • Jesse Jackson Jr was allowed to racebait during the primaries because he's special. As non-racists, we're not allowed to spell out exactly why that is the case.

  • I did not skip over the Waxman quote. Hate to repeat myself, but presenting somebody else's personal opinion as fact isn't really useful. He didn't investigate this matter, neither did you. All you have is your perception, which you tellingly mentioned, is reality.

    I would say that if a politician receives $400k, and he then gives that person's husband a pardon, there is a pretty good case for causation.

    I think you should read your article again:

    The timing of the library contribution and its proximity to the pardon were not immediately obtainable.

    Whoops, there's another assumption of yours that will have to rest only on your perception.

  • Perception is reality in politics.

    You might as well have stopped there, since you continue to repeat an unsubstantiated claim. Rule #1 in any kind of rational argument is that someone else's opinion is not a fact. Enjoy your highly unlikely, conspiratorial view. I wouldn't dream of altering its position in your firmly myopic point of view.

  • No one is contesting that the Clinton Foundation raises millions of dollars. But try and find one iota of evidence that it has anything to do with either of their politics. It's about as palpable an association as Obama being a Muslim.

    And as for the "big whoop" Rich pardon.  Selling a pardon to a convicted felon for $400K actually seems to indicate that yes money can influence decisions.

    Dick Morris, is that you?

    I am dealing extraordinarily well with the fact that Hillary lost. I see already the Obama has traded hope for good old Bankruptcy Bill writing, MBNA backing, RAVE Act dumping Biden.

  • Thanks for the links. I figured you would have posted a Don Van Natta piece. Here's a swift debunking of all of the innuendo by Media Matters. Van Natta was clearly trying to resurrect interest in his flop-book with Whitewater Scum-Artist Jeff Gerth. Even so, I'll make a quick couple of points.

    As with any presidential library, private fundraising is just that: private. There is no basis for suggesting that funds coming from anywhere toward  private property would have any impact on Hillary's policy positions. As a case in point, she was one of the most visible senators in 2004 denouncing the Dubai ports deal.

    Give some credit where credit is due. If you want to fault her as some kind of maniacal, power hungry , former corporate lawyer at least use a little bit of common sense to know that as a former corporate lawyer (and someone who was subjected to an unprecedented amount of financial probing, thanks to Van Natta's bff), she wouldn't be caught dead submitting to bribery, which that article alleges.

    As for the Rich story, big whoop. Do you think that would be an issue today if HRC was the VP pick? You have to be kidding me. You know, Kenneth Starr donated to her presidential campaign this year: maybe she set herself up on purpose just get him famous so that he could become a wealthy-enough lawyer to contribute to her campaign.... yawn

    It's a pretty deranged suggestion, but I wouldn't put it past some people.

  • It'd be repeating yourself if you could get your story straight... Where is your source?

  • Just as you did not try and refute my point that the Clintons have endured and survived more scrutiny than Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party combined.


Advertise Blogads