• Why are you buying into  -- and further promoting -- the corporatist media/GOP meme?  McCain points?

    Obama's positions now are entirely consistent with his positions in December of last year.  He's always been a centrist.  Do your own researtch on his stated positions -- not what the corporatist press said his positions were/are, but what he really said -- then and now and you'll see that this is true. The corporatist/GOP media first misrepresented him as a lefty so that now they can misrepresent him as a flip-flopper.

  • on a comment on Silencing Dissension. over 6 years ago

    ... one of the biggest and most-publicized groups of critics of Obama's policy choices on the Internet, your fearmongering about the campaign being behind these blogs being shut down is ridiculous at best.

  • You are SO predictable.

  • ... to go negative.

    He's making his point with positive statements, introducing himself to Middle America.  He's gotta be Jackie Robinson for a while yet.  He's gotta talk about himself and what he intends to do.

    In the meantime, he lets his high-profile supporters talk about McCain.

    There will be plenty of time for hard-hitting direct attacks in October.

  • The diarist makes unsupported assertions that are exactly contrary to the facts.

    For example:

    Gas tax holiday

    drill here, drill now to lower gas prices

    I don't know what Obama's immigration policies are, but McCain's must be better.

    The diarist smells of McCain troll.

  • comment on a post Hillary for VP or Bust for this Obama Supporter over 6 years ago

    I'd prefer for Obama to win the Presidency by a landslide;  Hillary on the ticket might be enough of an albatross around his neck to cause him to lose.

    Selecting Hillary Clinton for VP would amount to unilateral disarmament against John McCain.

    The biggest reason John Kerry lost in 2004 was his vote for the Iraq AUMF.  It was a fatal error, and undermined his arguments about ending the occupation, and undermined his arguments about having better judgement than George Bush.

    Clinton is unsuited to be Obama's VP for the same reason that Clinton was unsuited to the Democratic Presidential nomination:  it disarms the Democrats' strongest arguments against McCain, the "supports the Iraq Invasion and Occupation" argument, and the "bad judgement" argument that flows therefrom.

    Unless he wants 2008 to turn out as 2004 did, Obama can't put anyone on his ticket who supported the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, unless that person a) realized very early on that they had made a mistake, and 2) vocalized early and often the fact that they had made a mistake, 3) apologized for that mistake, and 4) worked their ass off to reverse that mistake.

    And frankly, I'm not certain that even John Edwards' mea culpa -- and his succeeding fight to undo his error -- would be sufficient to overcome his vote for the AUMF.

    But absolutely, barring a John Edwards strength, heartfelt mea culpa and request for forgiveness directly from her lips, Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from the VP slot.

  • ... are frequently full of the same brown substance.

    Take this diary, as a case in point.

  • ... for after November.

    Until then, it sounds like an attempt to delegitimize the Democratic nominee.

  • So you are correct, he's probably the inevitable choice of the UNBC suits.


  • ... can't be bothered with little things like "facts."

    They are here to smear, not discuss reality.

  • on a comment on 'Keith-ing it.' over 6 years ago

    ... here.

  • comment on a post 'Keith-ing it.' over 6 years ago


    STARR REPORT: Rachel Maddow got her prize--and poor Chris Matthews had to report it. On Saturday night, his cable channel was propagandizing its way through Nevada and South Carolina. And uh-oh! Shortly before 8 P.M. Eastern, Matthews introduced Pat Buchanan--and Maddow. As he did, he made an announcement--one he didn't seem to enjoy.

    Reading from the teleprompter, he said that Maddow is now "an MSNBC political analyst." Darn it! We couldn't get our VCR running quickly enough to catch the talker's full comment. But we did capture him saying this, with a somewhat menacing aspect:

    MATTHEWS (1/19/08): Congratulations. I didn't know anything about that, and if I had had anything to do with it, I might have gotten involved.

    You're right--his words don't quite parse. And Rachel agreed to say ha ha ha, just like two old pals were joshing. But based on tone--and a decade of Matthews-watching--we would guess that Chris wasn't pleased at the revoltin' new development. We'd guess that Matthews wasn't pleased to see Maddow getting her prize.

    Why would Matthews have been displeased? On the evening of the New Hampshire primary, Maddow broke every rule in the book; she told Matthews, to his face, right on the air, that liberals were saying that he was the cause of Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire--that his gender-based trashing of Hillary Clinton had made people very mad. This broke every rule of On-Air Pundit Conduct--and we at THE HOWLER joined many liberals in praising Maddow for it. And then, shazzam! A strange event! Within a few days, Maddow apparently told the AP about how great Matthews actually is (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/15/08). Maddow got right with a cable god. And soon, she had her prize!

    Did Maddow run and lie about Matthews so she could land this big, brilliant plum? We don't have any way of knowing--but we've seen this gruesome movie a million times by now. Why would Maddow, a "progressive" woman, run off to praise Matthews, an utterly crazed woman-trasher? In the particular case, we have no idea--although we'll ask Maddow, one more time, to explain her peculiar comments. Until she does, we'll assume the worst--that Maddow is the latest self-dealer to trade the truth for her own success. We'll treat her with the contempt she has earned until she explains why she said what she did--why she praised this overt woman-hater on her way to her big career prize.

  • on a comment on 'Keith-ing it.' over 6 years ago

    "Selective" = "Intentional, vs. "Random" = "Accidental".

  • ... but if you choose to mourn a dead celebrity  who did more than any single person in the news business to legitimize the Bush-Cheney con job that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings in Iraq, more than four thousand of them fellow Americans; then unless you support that slaughter, yes, I say you have no business doing so.

    I prefer to mourn those who deserve mourning.  As far as I am concerned, this well-paid and pampered anti-journalist is not among the deserving.

  • ... but you hide it.

    If you are not a hypocrite, you will remove the TR you gave me.


Advertise Blogads