• comment on a post Obama Rocking The Early Voting over 5 years ago

    Has already prompted the Georgia House Majority Leader (Republican, shock!) to call for the elimination of early voting in the future.

    He had included the expansion of early voting in his vicious voter id bill, clearly believing that it'd help the Republican Party.  But now that it isn't, it's time to do away with it.

    http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared- blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/ 10/12/a_republican_wonders_if_early.html

    I really hope, come the next president, that the putatively Democratic federal government will get off its ass and prevent political parties from gaming the system in favor of their voters.  Everyone should have an equal opportunity to vote.

  • That Jim Martin, the Democratic candidate, is a good candidate, a good Democrat, and from what I hear, a good person, too.  

    Saxby Chambliss is an ass, but Jim Martin has much, much more to recommend him other than "he's not Saxby Chambliss" or "he's a Democrat."

  • comment on a post Free Advice over 5 years ago

    There are plenty of internet users who are disabled - people with the same disability as McCain, or worse, people without their hands or their arms.

    McCain's disability isn't why he doesn't use the internet.  McCain doesn't use the internet because he's never cared to learn, never had to learn, because by the time the internet became popular, he had a servant to do that for him.

    He's no different from Bush, who has an aide put download songs onto his ipod.  He's pampered.

  • First, there's disbelief.  Then, disgust.

    McCain-Palin have no excuse - they should really be held responsible for this.

  • Not that choice isn't a winner, but . . .

    Palin billed rape victims to gather evidence to prosecute their rapists.  McCain's voted against legislation that would require states, rather than rape victims, to bear that cost.

    Contrast with Obama and Biden, one of whom sponsored legislation to protect victims at the state level, and one of whom sponsored legislation to protect victims at the federal level.

    Obama and Biden can't lose on this issue, and McCain and Palin deserve to be dragged through the mess they've made for themselves.

  • comment on a post John McCan't over 6 years ago

    You don't really even have to change the spelling of the name.

  • This isn't about Hillary or Obama.  This is about the voters.  Why should the intent of the voters be ignored?

  • It's about the voters.  

    Do you honestly believe that no Democratic primary voter in Michigan preferred Obama to the other candidates?  If not, how can you claim that their intent should have no influence over the measure of the popular vote?

  • comment on a post Clinton Campaign Statement On The RBC Ruling over 6 years ago

    Your word choice is unfortunate.  May I suggest the use of "complaining" or "whining" in the future?

  • on a comment on Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    I don't share the visceral sense of outrage that Hillary's supporters seem to feel, nor do I feel it as intensely.  It may be that the well of outrage has run dry for me.  It's been a long primary.

    That said, I do agree that Hillary has had to deal with sexism that Barack has not, that said sexism is worthy of outrage, and that the primary as a whole has revealed a level of anti-woman hatred that I did not expect.  

    I don't think that Obama endorses it.  He's married a feminist woman, they've undoubtedly raised their daughters to expect and demand equality.  And I think that he'll fight for that as president.  

    If he hasn't persuaded you of that then, clearly, he has some work to do.

  • on a comment on Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    Hillary has been the victim of sexism.  That's been true since 1991 at least and undoubtedly stretches back to her public life in Arkansas and, I'm sure, her private life as well.  Perhaps there are Obama supporters who would deny that, but I'm not one of them and I don't believe that there are many who would.

    Is the problem really that Obama's supporters deny that Hillary's been the victim of sexism, or is it their refusal to agree with you - specifically, their refusal to share your belief that Obama is an objectively inferior candidate who prevailed primarily because of his identity?  Or that Hillary is an objectively superior candidate whose identity played no significant part in her success?  If it's the latter, then I doubt you'll ever get the "support" you want.

    Otherwise, you're right, it will be difficult for the Democratic Party if "one half doesn't want to admit what happened to the other half" - but really, I think that statement could apply to either half of the party, right now.

  • on a comment on Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    And note how the poster condemns sexism in one breath, even as they deride Pelosi's "botox face" in another.

    And then there's the inevitable assertion that Pelosi's supposed preference for Obama is due to some desire to be the queen bee, and not because, you know, she's a bona-fide liberal who views Hillary's Clintonism with skepticism, or some other non-sexist reason.

  • comment on a post Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    You can say this:

    Can't we say that while we have seen little racism in the campaign, the sexism has been vile and obvious and widespread particulary in the media and from pundits?

    But you can't expect anyone to be sympathetic to your claim when you flatly dismiss the exact same view expressed by Obama supporters.

    Discrimination doesn't only happen when it happens to you.

  • That the narrowness of Kerry's defeat was due to the presence of John Edwards.

  • I'm hesitant to endorse the idea that political parties are "private" in any meaningful way.  But that is neither here nor there.

    There is absolutely no reason that a person should have less of a right to influence the Democratic Primary because they move from one state to another - it's ridiculous to claim that one's right to influence the Democratic Primary should change, for example, because they move from one side of the South Carolina-North Carolina border to the other.  Whatever the rules may be, for a national contest, they must be consistent across state lines.

    In the major political parties, that's the delegates, which in Democratic primaries are apportioned by its party's turnout in the past two Presidential elections.

    This, too, is ridiculous.  A state that turns out X+1 Democrats in the current election should not be given less influence than a state that turned out X Democrats merely because the latter turned out more in some previous election.  The influence on this election should be determined by the turnout in this election.

    There does have to be some "common currency."  That common currency should be votes.  Any aspect of the system that prevents that currency from being common should be changed to ensure that it is.


Advertise Blogads