The black community is really getting angry at the Clintons. I am circulating an email to my friends asking whether its better for blacks to vote Huckabee if matched with Clinton given his favorability among blacks in Arkansas. This may be the year that anti-racist progressives finally part ways with a party that takes them for granted. I am next going to prepare a petition asking Senator Obama to consider leaving the Democratic Party if these racial smears continue.
Does anyone really need to ask why Lieberman, who the Clinton's actually campaigned for, is now betraying his party and friends?
Probably for the same reason Nader, who is supposedly some wild-eyed liberal but in fact loves money and is a multi-millionaire from his supposed poverty works, betrayed liberalism, the poor and working people by giving us Bush.
I would like to know what that 9% have against Obama that they don't have against Edwards. I would think a few points is due to Edwards being Southern, maybe a couple due to race/ethnicity, but that leaves about 5%.
"In hypothetical matchups for the general presidential election, Clinton and Obama each led Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Romney, although at times narrowly. Obama was somewhat stronger, besting Giuliani by 6 points, Huckabee by 11 and Romney by 18. Clinton had an edge of 1 point over Giuliani, 9 points over Huckabee and 6 points over Romney."
If Hillary is upset with anyone it should be Drudge, who has now had that haggard-looking pic of HRC up for three days. It is making its rounds on the internet and people are concluding that she has been getting botox injections before the debates. I am sure it will come up on MSNBC today.
I actually thought this was a joke diary having seen Obama's new ad (on the evening news last night). No mention of HRC, just glowing praise from newspapers, including DMR. The only way you can say this is unfair is to conclude its unfair to talk about your own character because juxtaposed to HRC its an indictment of the Clinton scandals. That is a stretch even if true.
That video fits into the narrative of Clinton as programmed and cold. I thought of the mock Apple ad from long ago and it totally predicted what we saw this morning. Its pretty sad that this late in the campaign she is still not sure what her message is (the NYTimes says Bill and his new girlfriend came up with Hillary's latest).
Women as a whole are harmed by her poor performance as well. Hillary is held up as the gold standard, and she pales in comparison to Obama. If you did not know anything about the candidates and simply watched them in interviews and rallies, you would conclude Obama was the more seasoned. There are far more impressive women than Hillary and I suspect that is why women are having doubts about her.
That is a dreadful, but accurate, picture of Clinton. It looks like the corruption is warping her face. I emailed it to some friends who thought I had altered it somehow. Clearly, Clinton gets botox injections to smooth out all those wrinkles and the camera caught her in an unbotoxed moment. Makes you wonder just who Bill Clinton bought that Viagra for when he was in South Carolina.
If I were in Iowa I would challenge Edwards to an actual fight, just to show he's really a coward. All that bluster is backed up by small hands and small feet. He and Clinton are opposite sides of the same coin, its just not clear which side is masculine.
I am glad you raised healthcare. Mass. is the only state in the union with an individual mandate, and guess what? The mandate has not achieved universality. And the reason is cost, which is the very reason Obama focuses on cost. This is the real issue, though. Obama has said he is open to a mandate if it can work, but Clinton and Edwards have painted themselves into a corner by saying they won't compromise on a mandate. So what happens when the analysts say the mandate does not work and it will only end up being a tax on working families? Do they stick to their guns as Clinton did in the 90's and nothing gets done? On this issue, Obama wins hands down, but he is losing the rhetoric war. I may have to go on air myself to explain it.
Can we be honest at least? What exactly is Edwards talking about? The lobbyists talk mostly to congress and lobbying happens to be in the Constitution so he can't ban lobbying. He uses the example of a courtroom, but that is not even close to how it works in Washington. There is no judge to referee, which is why Obama is proposing to be the referee. And it goes without saying that there have been quite a few good trial lawyers in DC for a long time. Edwards is nothing new. If anything, his approach is certain to lead to more gridlock. I used to like Edwards, but his rhetoric has gotten too hard for me.
As a jew, I grew up being told that only Israel matters and that anyone who is not a 100% friend of Israel (meaning someone who acknowledges the need to "compromise") is an enemy. Krugman, though liberal, is a jew first and foremost. This is what unites him with Lieberman and Feinstein. They will always vote for what is best for Israel even when its not in the interest of America. My father is like this, which is why he made sure all of us have dual citizenship with Israel.
I, otoh, do not agree with this only way of thinking. I believe the future is only attainable if all semitic peoples share Jerusalem and the land. I certainly believe that the territorial integrity of Israel must be preserved, but the Palestinians need a state of their own and Syria should have the Golan Heights. We can only get there through real peace and compromise. And this is why I support Obama. I don't know if Bob Kerry was being honest when he said he thought it was a good thing that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, but I 100% believe it. I believe only providence could have brought this about at this time in our history.