• Just donated to her yesterday!  She's running a great campaign and it would be WONDERFUL if she could take down nutso conservative Dana Rohrabacher.

    I'm just over the line district-wise, so won't have the privilege of voting for Debbie, but would like to second the push for her.  It's wonderfully cheering to see all the lawn signs for her as I drive my son to school in the morning through neighborhoods which usually sport more Republican signs than Democratic.

    A win for Debbie would both send a MUCH BETTER DEMOCRAT to Washington and would also really further demoralize Orange County Republicans who are depressed that McCain isn't doing better.

  • I heard Reid make this exact same comment about McCain several months ago on a local NPR talk show while he was promoting his (Reid's) bio book.  I was a bit stunned by his forthright comment.  So, apparently was the interviewer who asked for clarification.  Reid was only willing to rather vaguely refer to some runins he's had with McCain in the Senate, but he implied that McCain is a loose cannon who doesn't deal well with people who disagree with him and even hinted that he and McCain came close to blows at least once.  At the time, I was disappointed that there wasn't more coverage of Reid's assessment of McCain in the media (though I wasn't surprised, considering how much the media is on the tire swing for McSame).  Let's hope that Reid's characterization gets more attention now.

  • I heard Reid make this exact same comment about McCain several months ago on a local NPR talk show while he was promoting his (Reid's) bio book.  I was a bit stunned by his forthright comment.  So, apparently was the interviewer who asked for clarification.  Reid was only willing to rather vaguely refer to some runins he's had with McCain in the Senate, but he implied that McCain is a loose cannon who doesn't deal well with people who disagree with him and even hinted that he and McCain came close to blows at least once.  At the time, I was disappointed that there wasn't more coverage of Reid's assessment of McCain in the media (though I wasn't surprised, considering how much the media is on the tire swing for McSame).  Let's hope that Reid's characterization gets more attention now.

  • comment on a post Is Fournier Moonlighting for McCain? over 5 years ago

    Fournier's smart. Smarter than any of you.

    Well, he's got to be smarter than you, at least.  But that's a pretty low bar to clear.  I think the GEICO cavemen could make it, too.

  • is that attempts to get people to use empathy and understand the other side's anger get dismissed.

    This photo was powerful precisely because it allows the viewer to experience that visceral kick in the gut that any woman -- let alone any Hillary supporter -- would feel seeing it and seeing the smirk on the wearer's face.

    What is frustrating is that this diary is about trying to describe how many women feel about the fact that it looks like the dream of a woman president is about to be deferred.

    It doesn't MATTER what the arguments for each candidate are or even -- at this point -- who's to blame for the sexism that existed in the campaign (and I wasn't even a Hillary supporter and it's damn clear it was out there).  The sexism is out there in our society.  She is the first woman to run who really had a shot of winning the office.  You'd have to believe our society suddenly became gender-blind overnight not to think there was sexism in this campaign.  Just as there was racism.  Just as there was nastiness.  We've been stewing in 8 years of nasty politics.  How could there be anything else?  I thought the appeal of Obama's vision is precisely that he is asking us as Americans to be BETTER THAN THAT.

    As the primary campaign winds to a close, it is important to try to repair the damage and come together for November.  The winners have even more responsibility for this than the losers, not because they are on a particular side, but because they are emotionally in a better place to get the job done.

    And it is a job that needs to get done.

    If you're not willing to understand the hurt, how in hell do you expect to fix it?

    Stop complaining about Natasha posting this picture and start contemplating what to do to heal the bitterness such messages engendered in all who may have encountered them.

  • comment on a post John McCain: War Propagandist over 6 years ago

    It's a great ad conceptually, but for those of us easily distracted visual thinkers out there, the visual layout was distracting.  When the text was up, I couldn't concentrate on what Scott McClellan was saying.  Second half was stronger than first half, but the McCain Janus image took me a minute to comprehend because I was expecting the other face to be Bush.  

    Still, I think it's a winner, and I'm glad Dean is keeping the pressure on McCain.  His negatives have already started going up, and I want to see that continue.

  • desmoinesdem, back in the presidential primary, the general pundit consensus seemed to be that Iowa voters were pretty sophisticted and more swayed by retail politics than TV ads.  Do you think in retrospect that was a correct generalization (did all the ads Obama ran help him significantly)? And if it was true for the presidential race, do you think it holds for the Fallon/Boswell race as well, or does Fallon's lack of money for ads really handicap him?

  • Yikes!  I can understand your unease with Brazile's dismissiveness about working-class and Latino Democratic voters, but you don't think Begala's egg head comment is equally offensive -- buying into the anti-intellectual, anti-college, Republican bullshit that stupid is good and smart is bad?

    Hasn't eight years of Mr.Dumbass everything-I-touch-turns-to-shit taught us anything?

  • Algebraically it looks like this:

    1.0X + .46Y = .7Z
    and
    .36X + 1.0Y = .64Z

    where X = #Clinton votes
          Y = #Obama votes
          Z = #Total votes

    Solving this to eliminate Z, you get

    X = .91Y

    Which if it plays out (ie. if the exit polls prove accurate) means that Clinton gets fewer votes than Obama.

    [I'm making the assumption that all (100%) of Obama voters would be content if Obama was the nominee and all (100%) of Clinton voters would be content if Clinton was the nominee. I suppose this could be wrong as well.]

  • CBS News has some early exit poll results up as well.  I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on their announcing that 70% of voters polled would be content with Clinton as nominee and 64% would be content with Obama.  At its face, this looks better for Clinton, but when you dig deeper you get a different story, because only 36% of Clinton voters would be content with Obama while 46% of Obama voters would be okay with Clinton.  Anyway, doing a little algebraic manipulations, it looks to me that CBS exit polls show Clinton with 91% of the vote that Obama gets.

    If these exit polls are accurate that would seem to point to an upset for Obama (of course, I'm also assuming my math isn't cockeyed<g>).

  • What you have is good genetics.  Lucky you.  Others aren't so lucky.  Like the kid who died from an infected tooth last year.

    As for mandates, I believe Obama leaves them out of his plan not because he truly believes mandates are wrong -- otherwise there would be no mandate for children -- but because electorally it would  cost him with two of his strongest constituencies -- young people who generally don't want to pay for health insurance until they need it and independents who have a libertarian streak and don't want to have to buy into a system when they're healthy even if it helps other people who are not.

    It's politics -- pure politics, but not about getting health care passed, but about getting elected.  I'm tired of people claiming otherwise and acting like it's a matter of principle.

  • on a comment on Thank You, Senator over 6 years ago

    Please inform me whom you're supporting so I can add it as a datapoint on whom NOT to support, now that the best candidate has dropped out of the field.

  • on a comment on Edwards lays into Obama over 6 years ago

    That wouldn't change what desmoinesdem is talking about one little bit.

    REagan's appeal wasn't populism! It was instead appealing to the worst in people...appealing to the racists who didn't like civil rights, the corporatists that didn't like unions, the businesses who didn't like regulation, the hard headed practical types who loathed "tree huggers", the men who didn't like the rise of feminism, the rich who didn't like paying their fair share of taxes, the middle class who aspired to be rich, the chauvinists who wanted Reagan to beat his chest and proclaim us the most powerful superpower in the world (even while the Soviet Union had their missiles trained on us), and all the anti-New Dealers who loathed the notion of any sort of social safety net, because of oourse people are only poor because they're lazy or stupid or both.

  • on a comment on Edwards lays into Obama over 6 years ago

    I was a little older, and yes you have it  right.   Stagflation (something I fear we're all going to come to know and loathe soon) was rampant, gas lines were everywhere, and people didn't like being told by their President that they should actually conserve energy so we would be less dependent on foreign oil.  Americans being asked to accept limits -- sacrilege!

    But in the end, what really cost Carter the election, in my humble opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis, which -- it came out later -- was actually extended because Reagan made s nice little deal with the Iranians to release the hostages AFTER the election in exchange for some nice powerful weapons -- the so called "arms for hostages" deal.

    Yeah, Reagan was a real sweetheart.  

Diaries

Advertise Blogads