• Hey!  I tried to type a rejoinder, and the keys burned my fingertips.  Stop it!

  • on a comment on Standing Ovation for Alegre over 6 years ago

    If it's about praising what we admire in diarists . . .

    . . . then I greatly admired Alegre's enthusiasm and commitment to Clinton.

    However, the diarists I admire most frame strong arguments, then stick around to defend their claims.  This community may debate the extent to which Alegre did the former.  There's no question she abrogated her responsibility on the latter.

  • on a comment on This is brilliant over 6 years ago

    It's true that, in the Senate, the votes may all be for or against cloture on these bills, but McCain will still be forced to take sides.  He could for or against cloture, or he could not vote at all.  Any which way, he opens himself up for criticism, just as he did on Webb's GI Bill bill.  Do you support this legislation, Senator McCain?  Will you vote for it?

  • Yeah.  It's such a good quote because it crystalizes this cognitive dissonance and gives the lie to his straight talk.  Everyone knows that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.  Yet, somehow, the reporter "stumped" McCain.

    This is the sort of quote that wouldn't register on a lot of people.  And for others, it doubtless mirrors their own cognitive dissonance.  For guys like my father-in-law, who voted twice for Bush but will vote for Obama, it's proof that McCain is a pandering liar.  My father-in-law is self-employed and usually voted Republican because he saw them as the ones who cared more about commonsense business decisions.  But he hates the social conservatism.  Pandering to the Religious Right is going to backfire on McCain: It'll turn off the Independents and lots of fiscal conservatives who are fed up with ideologues.

  • Well, you said it several times, so it must be true.

  • on a comment on This is brilliant over 6 years ago

    I believe that Clinton is ten times the candidate McCain is--and she was on the right side of almost every issue.  Obama bested her; he'll destroy McCain.

  • comment on a post Slogans and a Big Smile Won't Unify the Democrats over 6 years ago

    You're so right.  I was disgusted when that Obama surrogate in New Hampshire questioned publicly whether or not Clinton had ever dealt cocaine.  Obama didn't apologize.

    No, wait.  That was Clinton.

  • Kevin:

    I have never thought the Clintons racist.  However, I do believe they tried on multiple occasions to play race in their favor and learned how toxic the topic can be.  (Far more toxic, I would argue, than sexism and misogyny, which permeate our culture.)  I'll offer three examples.

    1.  Bill Clinton seeking to diminish Obama's SC victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's two SC primary wins.  Why Jackson?  Why not Edwards in 2004?  I believe he was trying to pigeonhole Obama as having won because he was black.  Not racist in itself, but offensive to me nonetheless.

    2.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign trying to claw back in the race in March by arguing that working-class white voters wouldn't support Obama.  As part of this, they played up the Rev. Wright story as much as they could.  A different tack would have been to make an honest play on the issues for the votes of African Americans.

    3.  Tuesday night, when Clinton didn't mention African Americans as a constituency on whose behalf she's been fighting.  Perhaps she just gave up on that constituency, feeling bruised and bewildered--or simply pragmatic--that their votes had gone so overwhelmingly for Obama.  Nevertheless, her campaign seemed not to speak directly to or for African Americans for much of the spring.

    I certainly won't lump surrogates' comments into a blanket condemnation, although I think there was much to abhor about what was said by Andrew Cuomo, whatshisname Sheehan in NH, and Geraldine Ferraro.

  • I've read that elsewhere.  In particular, the vetting seems to focus on contributions to the Clinton Library and foundation.  Quite possibly a non-starter.

  • Hear, hear!  I cried on Election Night 2000 as my one-year-old daughter slept peacefully.  I watched her dance obliviously as the TV behind her showed the Twin Towers burning.  Now I have three children, and they deserve Obama.

  • You needn't deal in hyperbole.  You asserted above that Clinton did nothing Tuesday night for which she ought to apologize.  You got a reasoned response, which won't go away just because you ask if what she did is a "federal crime."  

  • I completely agree with you.  

  • I didn't compare their wins.  Certainly ours was the far more hotly contested race.  In my mind, that's all the more reason for the loser to come out publicly and enthusiastically in support of the winner in less than 100 hours.  Nothing positive that Clinton said Tuesday night would have been rendered hollow by also conceding to and endorsing Obama.

    Huckabee also spent quite a lot of time talking about the support he had received from voters, volunteers, and his staff.  It really was a very nice concession speech.  And it's analogous because it was delivered on the night that his opponent became the presumptive nominee.

  • comment on a post I Guess Obama Cut Those Classes at Columbia over 6 years ago

  • I didn't call him names.  I c*rsed him.

    And I think it's the diarist who needs to ease up, instead of overreacting to a light moment from Obama.


Advertise Blogads