Mar
13
13
Serious question
When did Talk Left transform from an interesting and thoughtful blog that made intelligent observations about the law and politics into a 24-7 “Barack Obama SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS!!!!” blog?
You're wearing the same clothes as yesterday!!! You saw Puddy!
DoodleBean said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:00
Around the time that AmericaBlog transformed into a 24/7 “Hillary is teh SUCK!” blog.
Brad said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:07
Fair enough. But I never held AmericaBlog in such high esteem to begin with.
While I’ve taken some shots at Hillary, I’ve tried to stay away from obsessively trashing her like a lot of people. She’s not ideal, but she’d be a damn better preznit than St. BBQ, and I don’t want to buy into the wingnut attack machine.
DoodleBean said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:12
I am so much with you. We need to be better than the repugs, not the same.
We’ll have to chalk it up to election year madness, I guess…
phleabo said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:13
I was going to make a similar point about the Great Orange Satan, where the diaries and comments have veered into some truly silly anti-Hillary hysteria.
I don’t like Clinton and I do think she’s got her personal political ambitions ahead of what’s best for the party, but she’s not going to be like John McCain and if she’s the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for her because the alternative is probably a Supreme Court stacked against anything not insanely wingnutty for the forseeable future.
I wish the lefties would grow the fuck up and take their ritalin or whatever, and focus on what matters - keeping McCain out of office and expanding the Democratic control of Congress. Believe it or not, it might actually take more than a single election to shift the politics in the US, and you just might have to vote for someone other than your ideal candidate - hell, you might have to make the lesser of two evils calculation. Whatever. Be a grownup about it.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:16
There was that era of the Duke rape case fixation. That was pretty appalling and I haven’t been back unless an occasional link from elsewhere has shown up.
EdgewaterJoe said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:21
You thinkTalkLeft is bad, go take a gander at MyHRC — er, MyDD.
That place has become All Hillary, All The Time.
vanya said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:23
Well, it is pretty ironic that a blog called “TalkLeft” would support Hilary. Maybe they should rename it “TalkCentrist.” I’ll also vote for Hilary over McCain, and she’s certainly not evil. But it drives me crazy that people who consider themselves standard bearers of progressivism think supporting Hilary over Obama is a good idea. Hilary is the right-wing candidate in the Democratic race - that’s why Reagan Democrats overwhelmingly support her, that’s why McCain respects her a lot more than he does Obama, that’s why her foreign policy advisors are all “liberal hawks.” The world won’t end if Hilary gets the nomination, but it will be a sadder world if so-called progressives help her get that nomination over Obama.
D.N. Nation said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:27
What was? Nifong’s conduct, or the fact that people were rightly upset over it?
Choose your words wisely.
One of Many said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:27
I am glad to see some of the blogs still remain neutral, although even some of those blogs are having a hard time staying out of the fray with the Ferraro scandal. How can they not comment on that? Amercablog, Talk Left and Taylor Marsh are all taking big chances by going to hardcore for one candidate. Depending on who eventually takes the Democratic victory, it could really hurt them in the long run.
moondancer said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:30
I can’t stand Clinton. I hate her staff. I think Penn/Wolfson are an insult to democratic sensiblities. I could go on. But having said that, she is preferable to that geriatric Manchurian candidate. But less so as each new episode unfolds.
As is almost always true in life, being a vicious unprincipled asshole gets rewarded.
Supply Side Jesus said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:37
The meek shall inherit the Ear… ah, fuck the meek. They’re just a bunch of whiny bitches.
The Politzanian Citizenry said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:39
We have noticed said drift among several sites near to our political heart. It renders blogs of either sort unreadable for half their audience. Why they don’t stick to “(Hillary, Barak) is better than McCain on issue x because of…” we do not know.
Short-sighted bastads all, we thinks.
- TPC
Jas said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:40
It is bothersome, both the HRC and Obama camps taking over blogs like they have been.
But then, since Edwards dropped out, I’ve not really given a rats ass which of the Dems get the nod, just so long as they beat the Repubs.
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:41
I was FOR HRC before I was AGAINST her…. Really, what she has been doing lately has really turned me off. But, like people have said, I will certainly vote for her over McCain or any Republican. When you look at the actual policy differences between HRC and Obama, they are miniscule compared to what the Republicans want this country to become. I would vote for a Hello, Kitty! wall clock before I would vote for a Republican. But I just wish everyone on the Dem side would just CALM DOWN and SHUT UP! Jeez….
Yeah, I don’t read Taylor Marsh anymore. That became like reading an official HRC for Prez web site.
gbear said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:47
Keith O. sure went postal on Hillary’s staff last night. I thought it was a great rant that delivered the outrage right where it needed to land.
Kit-Cat Wall Clock said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:47
The Hello, Kitty Wall Clock is the doomsday clock of liberal fascism.
Kit-cat
PS said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:49
Never forget, anyone running for Preznit voluntarily should be disqualified. But that’s the game we’re stuck in.
Also, sore losers are no fun but sore winners are worse.
Hello Kitty said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:51
Thank you so much for your support. With people like you behind me, I’m confident we can go all the way!
Please send your contributions to HelloKittyforAmerica08.com. Be generous. Our future is in the balance.
Marco said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:52
I prefer Hillary over Obama so I am actually interested to see a blog that may favor her in the same uncritical, ever-lovin’, can-do-no-wrong-ever way many of my former web destinations favor Barack.
Americablog, Huffpo, Buzzflash and Kos have crowned her Hitler McSatan along with the media. SadlyNo! is sadly one of the last places I can go for a laugh without getting told what a stupid racist asshole I am for not voting for a man I voted for in 2004.
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:53
Hello, Kitty! Wall Clock wants you to believe it will govern from the center. But looking at its voting record on issues like tax cuts, funding for the War on Terror, and criminal prosecution for drug offenders, it’s clear that half the time, Hello, Kitty! Wall Clock isn’t in the center at all–it’s on the left.
Left, right, left, right, left, right… sometimes, it’s almost as if Hello, Kitty! Wall Clock changes sides every second. America doesn’t need that kind of indecision in office.
I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:53
What was? Nifong’s conduct, or the fact that people were rightly upset over it?
It was Natalee Holloway for people who thought they were better than that.
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:54
Well, I may have possibly misstated my intentions about my possible voting preference. I would have to know more about the Hello, Kitty! candidate before I cast my vote. Like, have you appeared on Saturday Night Live lately or been involved in a prostitution ring? You know, important stuff….
G. Ferallo said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:54
Hello Kitty wouldn’t be in the position she’s in if she wasn’t so fluffy.
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:54
Er… the above post is funnier if you’re a Hello, Kitty! styled version of the old cat clocks, with the tail as a pendulum. I’ll shut up now.
Medium Dave said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:55
Righteous Bubba, regarding Jeralyn, I suspect that the simplest explanation is the correct one.
fish said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:56
Um. Not Hello Kitty. Felix the Cat.
HCINO.
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:57
Only as an accessory, as it were.
Kit-Cat Wall Clock said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:57
Hello Kitty is a fascist. Her vice president will make Cheney look like Bo-Peep.
DoodleBean said,
March 13, 2008 at 16:57
My huge black-and-white cat killed my Kit Kat clock. The carnage was horrible. I found one of the eyes under the couch in the living room — far away from where the clock had been hanging.
Thanks for reminding me. Sob!!
Felix said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:01
Issue flexibility is not the same thing as tail-wagging. I can tell you that I have the age and experience and the bag of tricks required to save you from the terrorists.
Kit-Cat Wall Clock said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:04
Felix the Cat is too old to be president. When the phone rings at 3 am, do you want someone who is still black-and-white?
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:06
Fritz the Cat, then?
Does anyone even remember Fritz the Cat?
owlbear1 said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:10
Hillary started out as a Republican, found out in college that wouldn’t get her anywhere and became a ‘Democrat’.
Felix said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:14
If you remember Fritz the Cat, you weren’t really participating.
Screamin' Demon said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:25
As is almost always true in life, being a vicious unprincipled asshole gets rewarded.
I’m not rewarding Hillary for her despicable behavior. Fuck her. As for the “Supreme Court” argument, don’t make me laugh. There’s no way Hillary would nominate anyone even one step to the left of the Republican-lite DLC. And those types side more often with the conservatives. She’d never nominate a liberal, because she knows she’d only leave him/her out to dry the minute the Borking began.
Anyone of you naive enough to believe she’d press to stop the war are kidding yourselves. She’d never allow herself to be portrayed as weak by the Republicans. Her promises to withdraw troops ring hollow.
I wish the lefties would grow the fuck up and take their ritalin or whatever, and focus on what matters - keeping McCain out of office and expanding the Democratic control of Congress. Believe it or not, it might actually take more than a single election to shift the politics in the US, and you just might have to vote for someone other than your ideal candidate - hell, you might have to make the lesser of two evils calculation. Whatever. Be a grownup about it.
I’m sick to death of being told by spineless people like you to shut the fuck up and vote against my principles. I’m sick of being told to play “Follow the leader,” and march in lockstep with the very people who’d sell a liberal like me down the river for a buck and a quarter. I’m sick of being lectured to by people who think they’re smarter than me and therefore believe I shouldn’t be allowed to think for myself.
As for supporting the Clintons: I don’t like rolling around in the mud with pigs. The filth stays with you forever.
PaulG said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:27
Nobody’s mentioned No Quarter, another gone bat-shit blog, this one anti-Obama.
Blue in AL said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:27
Since 80% have become 24-7 “Obama-Is-Teh-Second-Coming” blogs.
Blue Buddha said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:33
Oh great! We were talking about the front runners of Hello Kitty and Felix the Cat, and now you have to bring up that 3rd party hippie freak.
Edmund Schluessel said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:38
Just be glad it’s the other side that has to put up with the Ron Paul worshippers.
James A. Baker III said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:39
The meek shall inherit the Ear… ah, fuck the meek.
Yeah, fuck the meek. They won’t vote for us anyway.
Thorlac said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:41
Besides, when Felix the Cat gets in a fix, he reaches into his bag of dicks. And no one wants that.
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:42
D.N. Nation -
Choose your words wisely.
Are you issuing threats to commenters??! WTF?
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:44
Jas -
…since Edwards dropped out, I’ve not really given a rat’s ass which of the Dems get the nod, just so long as they beat the Repubs.
Couldn’t agree more. They are both the same flavor - POLITICIAN.
tomemos said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:47
Vanya:
But it drives me crazy that people who consider themselves standard bearers of progressivism think supporting Hilary over Obama is a good idea. Hilary is the right-wing candidate in the Democratic race…
Oh, absolutely! Which of Obama’s far-left stances do you like best? His insistence on truly universal health care? His tireless fight for gay marriage? His dedication to real gun control? It’s hard to count the number of ways in which he’s more left-wing than Clinton.
Actually, it’s hard to count because there really aren’t any.
NobodySpecial said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:49
I love the people who justify a Hillary vote with ‘Supreme Court! Supreme Court!’
News flash: Supreme Court tilts at least 5-4 conservative for the next 20 years no matter who you nominate.
Bigby said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:50
TalkLeft’s just channeling alt.duke.sucks.sucks.sucks on Usenet. Felix Teh Cat was fdc103@psuvm.psu.edu back in the day…used to hang out in the alt.kibo and was on the front lines of the Great alt.tasteless vs rec.pets.cats Flame War of ‘96…he now supports Obama.
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:52
If there’s so little difference between the two, if Hillary’s such a bitch and Obama’s such a naif, why don’t we concentrate on dragging both their sorry behinds closer to liberal goals?
tomemos said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:53
I love the people who justify a Hillary vote with ‘Supreme Court! Supreme Court!’
News flash: Supreme Court tilts at least 5-4 conservative for the next 20 years no matter who you nominate.
Um, right. And if McCain wins, then change that 20 years to 40 years, and “conservative” to “arch-conservative.”
People are justifying a Hillary vote IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
Yukon Cornelius said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:54
Oo! Oo! I know! Ever since Mr. “All I Want To Do Is Pick Fights with Other Democrats/Liberals and Be Contrarian and Outraged At All Times” Armando (Big Tent Democrat) joined!
That was easy …
Lawnguylander said,
March 13, 2008 at 17:56
News flash: Supreme Court tilts at least 5-4 conservative for the next 20 years no matter who you nominate.
How do you figure? What if McCain wins and nominates successors to one or both of the two oldest justices, Stevens and Ginsburg? If Clinton or Obama wins and has the same opportunity it’s probably close to status quo but not for twenty years.
[pompous fake tough guy]Now if you choose to respond, choose your words carefully. [/pompous fake tough guy]
J Neo Marvin said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:00
I stopped reading Talk Left when they supported Schwartzenegger during the California recall election. Pathetic.
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:01
Their substance is largely similar, leaving voters to decide on style. I happen to think–based entirely on his rhetoric and rhetorical ability–Obama stands a better chance or actually getting work done in the WH, but I admit it’s merely a preference.
I would, though, like to remind a couple of people that while there are no progressive candidates in the race, there is a right-wing loon. Vote against his geriatric warmongering ass, even if you can’t bring yourself to vote for either of the Dems.
Dan Someone said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:02
OK, honesty time for anybody who has expressed a strong (”principled” or otherwise) preference for or devotion to (or antipathy toward) Hillary or Barack*: If your fave candidate is not the party’s choice, when it comes time to pull the lever in the general election, will you (a) hold your nose and vote for the party candidate anyway; (b) hold your nose really tight and vote for McCain; or (c) vote for Nader or some other third-party candidate? Death is not an option. Nor is emigration, because I think 2004 proved that everybody who threatens to leave the country if such-and-such candidate wins is an overdramatic, lying sack of crap.
If your answer is (b) or (c), what the fuck? Do you hate the other candidate so much that you would consign the country to four more years of Republican “leadership,” or that you would throw away your vote (essentially consigning the country, etc., etc.)? And if your answer is (a), then why are you directing so much energy and anger at those who support the OTHER Democratic candidate, when you know that whichever one is selected to represent the party, you’re going to vote for him/her anyway?
Seriously, people. Argue the merits of the candidates’ positions, try to convince each other why your choice is better, but at least recognize that whichever one is chosen to run in the general, that person is going to be the one you MUST support if we are to have any hope of turning this country in a better direction. Save the attacks and hostility for the battle against McCain.
* Why is she always “Hillary” and he’s always “Obama”? Why not “Clinton” and “Obama” or “Hillary” and “Barack”?
linden said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:04
Right on, Susan of TX!
4jkb4ia said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:08
Hey, that’s not fair! Jeralyn has been doing good posts on Spitzer over the last few days.
4jkb4ia said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:09
By visiting both TPM Election Central and TalkLeft, I get most of the worthwhile election gossip.
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:10
* Why is she always “Hillary” and he’s always “Obama”? Why not “Clinton” and “Obama” or “Hillary” and “Barack”?
I have wondered that myself. I don’t know if it’s another form of easily deniable misogyny to be calling Ms. Clinton ‘Hillary” all the time, even in the MSM. We don’t go calling men who run for president by their first names, like “John” or “Bill”. What’s up with that?
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:13
I think it’s because “Clinton” was BIll Clinton for so long. I have no desire to diminish women but I use HIllary to be clear and concise. If she’s elected, people will probably start saying Clinton and Bill.
Joe Max said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:13
This message brought to you by the Republican National Committee and the McCain for President campaign.
“Yeah, I know we ended up with a 100-year war in the Middle East, a Supreme Court packed with Scalitos, and a doddering, belligerent old man with his finger on the nuke button, but dammit, I stood by my progressive principles! I feel so validated! Hey, what’s that? The sound of jackboots kicking my door in…?”
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:15
Scalitos, the new product from the Vatican. Like Doritos, but each bag comes with a coathanger and waterboard.
g said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:21
I like Lucky Cats, meself.
Maneki Neko
g said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:23
Oh, great. So it wasn’t bad enough to have Randy show up, you had to invite the War of the Candidates in.
Optional said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:25
* Why is she always “Hillary” and he’s always “Obama”? Why not “Clinton” and “Obama” or “Hillary” and “Barack”?
Because we like to think of our politicians in one word names, always the last name … so, Obama, McCain, Bush, etc … however, the brainspace where “Clinton” would go is already taken by Bill. Thus, the need to specify “Hillary”.
“Bush” is a different case, since by the time he came on the scene the Bush the elder was pretty much politically irrelevant. Still, he’s often called variations on “Dublya”, and Bush the Elder is often referred to as “Poppy Bush”, or “GW Bush”, or whatever.
So, no sexism or misogyny, just practicality.
gbear said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:27
g, I’ve been told that even Lucky Cats are in divided camps. Raising one hand means financial luck, raising the other means romantic luck. How can we hope to prevail with that kind of major division in the ranks?
Till said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:28
BTD may be an asshole, but he’s not wrong about Obama. Really, when 90% of liberal blogs are treating Clinton as Satan and Obama as Jesus, TalkLeft is usually a nice dose of reality, though Jeralyn sometimes goes off the deep end. FWIW, I don’t like either candidate.
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:29
You mean they’re not Black Power cats??
Gilmore said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:30
It makes me laugh to see you leftists voting for Hello Kitty when she’s only going to further the military-industrial agenda of endless war.
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:32
O.K., now I am SURE I won’t be voting for Hello, Kitty! I never knew!!
(I have had more laughs this morning on this comment thread than I have had all month….)
Yukon Cornelius said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:33
No one agrees with me it’s all Armando/Big Tent Democrat’s fault? Ever since the DKos days I’ve always felt he is more interested in starting a fight than he is in winning anything. And the fights are always with dems/liberals …
Till said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:38
I don’t exactly disagree, but lately he’s been berating them for failing to stick with their progressive principles. So I’m not sure what your point is. Other than his stance on free trade and indifference on health care, he’s hardly a conservative mole.
NobodySpecial said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:38
How do you figure? What if McCain wins and nominates successors to one or both of the two oldest justices, Stevens and Ginsburg? If Clinton or Obama wins and has the same opportunity it’s probably close to status quo but not for twenty years.
[pompous fake tough guy]Now if you choose to respond, choose your words carefully. [/pompous fake tough guy]
Quite frankly, I don’t consider 7-2 decisions to be any worse than 5-4, for all practical purposes. And Scalito will be on the court for 40 years regardless.
Jim said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:44
If the meek did inherit the Earth, they wouldn’t have the experience to run it. Look at them, the putzes. They’re so meek, they show up to state legislatures and vote “present.”
They were married to the bold for 12 years while the bold were leading people at a state and federal level. Are the meek trying to claim that they are bold because their spouses are bold?
Feh. Keep the meek.
g said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:45
You mean they’re not Black Power cats??
Maneki Neko’s hands are facing palm forrward - they are beckoning, not clenching their fists.
But they DO have black Maneki Nekos. Also pink ones
Nightjar said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:45
BTD may be an asshole, but he’s not wrong about Obama. Really, when 90% of liberal blogs are treating Clinton as Satan and Obama as Jesus,”
No, not treating Clinton as Satan but as the race baiting triangulating power hungry slut she is.
g said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:46
Awwwwww!
tomemos said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:47
Gosh, Nightjar, why do you suppose so many people think some Obama supporters have a sexism problem?
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:49
Quite frankly, I don’t consider 7-2 decisions to be any worse than 5-4, for all practical purposes.
It sets up the tension for the next decision.
“Okay, they’ve legalized heads on pikes outside the city walls. Who’s the swing vote going to be on infants in catapults?”
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:51
Supporting one candidate or another is not the most useful thing a blog can do. Most of us have an opinion about which politicians are better and that’s fine, say what you think. But when a blog goes all-out for a politician, the blog just becomes boring, in my eyes anyhow. Blogs are best at getting out information that’s been ignored by the other media, and sparking conversation & analysis. As top-down style purveyors of a certain point-of-view, they are just not very good. TV has them beat hands-down.
Djur said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:51
Quoth Armando at Swords Crossed way back when, “Speaking for me, I love the United States of America and am devoted to its well being. Again, speaking for me, I think it is the greatest country in the world. Yes, I am one of those folks who believes in American Exceptionalism.”
The post is gone, but you can find contemporary references to the quote. I think that says it all.
Doofus said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:59
I blame Armando. Petty punkish behavior.
Nightjar said,
March 13, 2008 at 18:59
tomemos
“Gosh, Nightjar, why do you suppose so many people think some Obama supporters have a sexism problem?”
Considering the fact I was an avid HClinton supporter before she became a sewer trout campaigner snuggled up close to the worst GOP talking points, I’d say your statement is crappola. I noticed you didn’t deny the rest of my statement IE.. race baiting, triangulating (me and Mccain good CIC, Obama not so much) power hungry etc..
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:00
I don’t care whether Clinton or Obama gets the nomination. Whichever one gets the nomination will receive my vote. All the rest of the bullshit hand-wringing and name-calling is beside the point and doesn’t help anyone a bit.
Let me make things more clear for you all. I’m a gun-owning disabled veteran who was born in Indiana, who was raised in Alabama and who worked his way through college. By all rights, I ought to be about as red as they come, and in fact, the GOP pretty much owned my vote from the time I turned 18 in the early 1980s. I voted for Perot in 1992 (because Andre Marrou, the LP candidate, had more bimbo eruptions than Bill Clinton) and for Harry Browne in 2000. But other than that, I was Republican all the way.
I never voted for a Democrat for President in my life — prior to 2004. Now I will never vote for a Republican again. For anything. Ever. I’m sick of being lied to. I’m sick of being browbeaten. I’m sick of having my patriotism and love of country called into question because I won’t blindly jump on the Bush Bandwagon. As a country, we bought into the lies and fabrications after 9/11. We gave our government our trust, and they used our patriotism and fear against us.
And the Republicans led the way.
Therefore, I will vote for the moldering corpse of a week-old roadkill before I vote for a Republican.
I will vote for an inanimate object before I vote for a Republican.
If the Invisible Zombie Sky Bully comes to Earth in a halo of light and says “Please, my son, vote Republican, because verily the Democratic candidate is Satan,” and the Democratic candidate steps forward, grows horns and a tail and says “it’s true, I am,” I still will not vote for a Republican.
Get the picture?
Does this bring everyone back to the central argument we need to be making this election season?
Right now, I don’t care if it comes down to a between candidates Ebola and Cholera for the Democrats. I’m going with whoever the Democrats nominate, even if it’s a deadly fucking infectious disease.
The Republicans want my vote and my donations — at least, that’s what all the mailers I get at my house seem to say. Well, fuck ‘em all. When I get my absentee ballot in October, I’m marking nothing but Ds. I don’t care if the state and federal Democratic candidates are the Seven Deadly Sins. They’re all getting my vote.
The Republicans can all move to Mars, as far as I’m concerned. I will never trust another one of them again, and I will never give my vote to another one of them again.
Quite frankly, I think everyone needs to knock off the name-calling, finger-pointing, blamestorming and whining, and concentrate more on getting more people like me into the tent before we start saying “fuck it, a pox on ALL Y’ALL’S HOUSES.”
There’s a Federal election campaign going on. I think that anyone who sides with the Democrats should start acting like they actually want the Democrats to win instead of whining about every little bump in the road.
Rary Guppert said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:04
Krazy Kat got bricks!
Yukon Cornelius said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:05
Another way to put it: I’ve been reading Armando/BTD posts for I guess a couple years now, and I often find myself wondering: “Does he really believe that or did he pick his position (or exaggerate it) b/c it’s most likely to start a fight?” That’s what’s always pissed me off about the guy. But hey - I could be wrong …
Invigilator said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:08
Aaaaack!
Aaaack!
Aaack!
(Translation: Bill the cat for President! When a healthily drug-addled perspective on current events is the only one that can make sense of them, only Bill the cat will do. Because the best response to the incomprehensible is not to understand it.)
zeppo said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:10
OB-GYN Kenobi: That’s sort of what I was trying to say way back up there at the beginning of this comment thread, only without the venom and vigor behind it. But I am certainly with you. That’s what I find so discouraging about all this internecine crap…. What I think we need is really a 180 deg. change of course from the Bush years. Either of the Dems we have running would provide that, in my estimation. People might criticize HRC for her coziness with the Repugs, but really, does anyone really think that she would continue to systematically shred the Constitition the way Bush has? Or attempt to turn every single branch of the government into a political arm of the Democratic party like Rove attempted?
I don’t.
Ralph Nader said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:14
The fact is, both Democrat candidates are clearly in the pockets of corporate America, unlike John McCain, who is an honorable and very uncorporate man, who was right about Iraq all along, and me saying this has nothing to do with being a Halliburton stockholder, because look over there! Hitlery and Barack Hussein Obama are both betrayers of progressive ideals, unlike John McCain, who looks great in a suit and is an awesome guy and you should vote for him because he is a true progressive, like me, Ralph Nader, the progressivist person in the whole wide world.
What’s this? Another sack with a big dollar sign on it? Just put it over there with the rest of ‘em, boys.
tomemos said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:14
Nightjar, calling Clinton a “slut” is exactly equivalent to calling Obama … well, you know what it’s equivalent to. If being taken seriously is at all important to you, you should adjust your vocabulary.
As for the rest: I disagree on “race baiting” (don’t bother, I’ve heard it already), agree on “triangulation,” and as for “power hungry” … well, she wants to be president, right? How could anyone not be power hungry with ambitions like those?
By the way, I voted for Obama.
dan b said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:17
re: “Hillary” v “Clinton” and “Obama” v “Barack”:
Simple answer? Probably because she’s been running as “Hillary” ever since her first campaign for Senate and his campaign seems to prefer “Obama.” Why fight it?
JDinDC said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:25
Policy-wise, the differences are small and will be obliterated by the time Congress gets done obfuscating, masticating, and finally legislating.
Effectiveness: Neither will make much headway with a bare 51%. Obama at the top of the ticket is more likely to add to Democratic numbers; Hillary gets those GOP asses out of their barcaloungers to the polls.
Finally, Hill’s campaign is premised on the idea that she has already been there and done that. Fine, let the next generation build on that.
Lawnguylander said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:30
Quite frankly, I don’t consider 7-2 decisions to be any worse than 5-4, for all practical purposes. And Scalito will be on the court for 40 years regardless.
Until he’s 96? I doubt that but if it’s true how does that make it unimportant who replaces his colleagues? I’m not following your reasoning at all.
spencer said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:34
I think 2004 proved that everybody who threatens to leave the country if such-and-such candidate wins is an overdramatic, lying sack of crap
Well, there’s that, but it’s also not as easy to do as people think. It’s not like moving to Oregon. Your country of choice has to be willing to take you, for one thing; but if I want to move to Oregon there’s not much they can do to keep me out.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:38
“I want to move to Oregon there’s not much they can do to keep me out.”
My wife’s from Oregon. She says if you’re from California and you try to move to Oregon, they put you on the Amtrak Coast Starlite and send you back where you came from.
Duros62 said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:40
Death is not an option.
Then I choose cake.
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:48
Then I choose cake.
Do you have a flaaaaag?
Nightjar said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:50
tomemos
My use of the word slut in the context that existed was not referring to sex. It was referring to whoring for political power. In this case using tactics even repubs would hesitate on. It could, in effect, apply to either gender and is not near the same as using the N word for Obama.
So you don’t agree the Clinton campaign has been race baiting. You must have been living under a rock for the past few months to deny this fact.
Maybe it will comfort you to listen to Hill’s new champion R Limbaugh — that paragon of pro feminist sensibility.
mikey said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:51
It’s a stark, easily discerned choice.
And OB-GYN Kenobi describes it effectively.
We got to the same place via a slightly different route, but we are indeed in the same place.
The policies, the arrogance, the blatant criminal acts in the furtherance of raw power, the brazen looting of the treasury, the war mongering and war crimes of the last eight years are a toxin in the system. Under President McCain, the system will DIE. It’s happened slowly, but the america of today is utterly unrecognizable.
Jeezus christs tits in a mason jar, the congress just passed a law outlawing the very form of torture we have prosecuted people for in the recent past. Not a historically controversial position for america to take. The president VETOED it! And congress could not find enough votes to override that veto. I saw this in the newspaper. On page A18.
Look where they have brought us. Look at what they do that we don’t even notice any more. FISA was a horrendous loss for civil liberties, a radical shift away from the guarantees in the constitution. Now it’s the last, best hope of crazy liberals for maintaining some tenuous connection to the fourth amendment.
Can you even begin to think about the foul nature of this armed to the teeth rogue third world nation after another 8 years of this? Can you actually rule out camps for dissenters, trials for journalists, nuclear conflict? Have you thought about what america might be like for you and your family under these insane, unsustainable militaristic corporatist policies?
There simply is no choice in November. Whatever you think about Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, if you are not already comfortably setteled in the plutocracy, you only have one vote for your own self interest, your own survival.
And that’s a “D”….
mikey
Duros62 said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:55
Finally, Hill’s campaign is premised on the idea that she has already been there and done that.
Yeah, that’s part of my problem with her.
The 90’s are over.
Duros Hussein 62 said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:57
Do you have a flaaaaag?
I don’t remember the rest. That’s all I got.
Chris said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:01
I cannot see a significant difference between Obama’s and Clinton’s stated positions. The deliberate similarity nicely illustrates the range of acceptable Democratic policy, at least at the national level, and makes me unenthusiastic about either of them.
I’ll pull the lever for Obama because he hasn’t done enough yet to make me despise him.
Hillary? After DADT, NAFTA, HillaryCare, DOMA, welfare “reform”, and her own bankruptcy bill and Iraq War authorization, I’ll pass.
Yeah, yeah, the fucking world will come to an end, my God the Supreme Court, and all the rest of it. I’ve heard it all before. Find someone else to vote for the cancer in the Democratic Party.
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:07
Here’s how I look at it:
Obama = Dirt
Clinton = Shit
McCain = Toxic Waste
I’d prefer to eat dirt rather than eat shit, but I want to avoid eating toxic waste if I possibly can. I don’t want to eat shit, or dirt really, but toxic waste could hurt or possibly kill me. So, if necessary, I’ll eat shit.
bd said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:10
Talk Left, Mydd, Corrente have all become unreadable over the past month.
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:19
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 19:48
Then I choose cake.
Do you have a flaaaaag?
No, but I DO have a lovely set of matches which I am arranging in a meaningful pattern should some Stormtrooper decide to come in and alert me that “The rebels…they’re here.”
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:19
Not to go all thought-policey on you, Nightjar, and I don’t mean to pick on you personally–I’ve just heard variations on this theme quite a bit lately, and I want to call it out.
There is almost no context in which you can call someone a “slut” and have it not be sexist. Your argument is that you’re not talking about sex, you’re talking about power, and that makes it okay. That argument fails because “slut” has no power as an insult without the implicit connotation of sex as degrading and women as degraded. Even if you mean it in a strictly political context, and even if you were applying it to a man, it’s still sexist. You’re using “slut” as a metaphor, but you’re still trying to insult the target by comparing him or her to a lusty woman.
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:21
You’re using “slut” as a metaphor, but you’re still trying to insult the target by comparing him or her to a lusty woman.
Oh NOES!!!!! WOMENZ ARE HAVING TEH SEX!!!!!
How far we haven’t come…
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:22
Uh, did I leave the gas on?
No! I’m a fucking squirrel!
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:23
So, if necessary, I’ll eat shit.
Two parties one cup.
Beer Me said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:25
Holy crap someone else has been thinking what I’ve been seeing.
It was a good site when it stuck to, you know, that politics of law and crime. Now it’s a sad b-version of hillaryis44.com
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:37
Two parties one cup.
Hey, that’s great! I’ll call it the two parties-one cup metaphor.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:40
“Yeah, yeah, the fucking world will come to an end, my God the Supreme Court, and all the rest of it. I’ve heard it all before. Find someone else to vote for the cancer in the Democratic Party.”
Shrug.
(raises hand)
I will.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:42
Thank you for not including a link, RB.
Seriously. What mikey said. I prefer Edwards. Can’t have him. Will vote for a crusty cat turd unearthed from the sandbox over McCain.
Voting for McCain because you don’t like Hillary or Barry just seems, well, idiotic.
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:45
If they dug up Lyndon Johnson’s bones & put them in a chair, I’d vote for that over McCain. As long as they cleaned them off first.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:46
What Toby said.
Dan Someone said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:48
I’ve heard it all before. Find someone else to vote for the cancer in the Democratic Party.
So, Chris, you’re saying that if Hillary is the Dem nominee, you will, what, sit out the general? Vote for Nader? Move to Venezuela? Might as well just pull the lever for McCain at that point.
Mike said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:55
It’s interesting that so many so-called ‘progressives’ have drank the Obama kool-aid. He is the least progressive candidate on the Democratic side. People seem to assume otherwise despite his voting record
…This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances….
No serious Democrat would praise Reagan as a ‘transformative’ figure or say that Republicans have been the ‘Party of ideas’ for the past 15 years.
Dan said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:57
Hey, John Edwards “suspended” his campaign. He didn’t end it. The party heads should select him at the convention.
Chris said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:01
Dan, I’d sit out the election. That’s why I’m hoping that Clinton drops out, although I know that ain’t happening for awhile and not without an ugly, ugly fight.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:01
No serious Democrat would cut off that speechless turtle.
No serious Democrat would place obstacles before that hopeful fish.
No serious Democrat would rain fire upon that precarious catfish.
No serious Democrat would annoy that salty fish.
No serious Democrat would exploit that evangelical fish.
No serious Democrat would complicate that specific fish.
No serious Democrat would curse that quivering black bass.
No serious Democrat would tattoo absurdities onto that freedom-loving water snake.
No serious Democrat would hurt that mathematical ‘gator.
No serious Democrat would annoy that xenophobic catfish.
No serious Democrat would rain fire upon that courageous perch.
No serious Democrat would wallow in that specific water snake.
No serious Democrat would draw blood from that contemptuous whitefish.
No serious Democrat would rain evil upon that low catfish.
No serious Democrat would make impossible that courteous fish.
No serious Democrat would bankrupt that pleasurable perch.
No serious Democrat would hurt that omnipotent blind fish.
No serious Democrat would puke on that infantile blackfish.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:02
How about Chris and Mike go off and argue about which candidate strays farther from the Democratic constituency’s ideals, and the rest of us can just drink Mai-Tais until the general election?
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:03
I’ve got evangelical fish to exploit
Dan said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:05
Dan Someone said,
March 13, 2008 at 20:48
I’ve heard it all before. Find someone else to vote for the cancer in the Democratic Party.
So, Chris, you’re saying that if Hillary is the Dem nominee, you will, what, sit out the general? Vote for Nader? Move to Venezuela? Might as well just pull the lever for McCain at that point.
Yes, Dan, that is what Chris is saying. That he would rather McCain was elected than to have to hold is nose and repress his gag reflex and vote for a candidate that is not worthy of that vote. And I agree.
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:06
I was kinda hoping to tattoo absurdities on a freedom-loving water snake
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:09
I’ll fund you out of my multimillion dollar ministry, atheist. After I buy my salvation yacht and my hallelujah helicoptor.
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:12
I’m interested in that mathematical ‘gator. If I feed it a cow, will it do the taxes?
(pause)
I didn’t like the look on my face today, so I decided to cut off my nose to spite it.
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:17
Aww, thanks pedestrian! I really appreciate that. But definitely get the salvation yacht & the helicopter first though. Or even a Hallelujia Hovercraft.
Robert M. said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:18
It’s interesting that you’re willing to believe a damn thing said by Nader’s VP for the ‘08 campaign.
DoubtingThomas said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:19
Nightjar: The minute you say “slut” you render the rest of your argument worthless to anyone you’d like to convince, regardless if you meant it as a metaphor or not.
Athiest:
“Obama = Dirt
Clinton = Shit
McCain = Toxic Waste”
Try growing something in dirt. It usually only blooms when you spread shit around it. But your point is well taken, McCain is Toxic and screaming at each other only makes it easier on him. Let’s all stop it.
I see many Edwards supporters like myself commenting here, maybe we should look at the bright side: Could the race lead to a brokered convention where each side refuses to give into each other and Edwards can come out with the nomination? Dreamland maybe, but it looks more and more possible as this race continues!
NobodySpecial said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:20
Until he’s 96? I doubt that but if it’s true how does that make it unimportant who replaces his colleagues? I’m not following your reasoning at all.
It makes it unimportant because it doesn’t matter who you nominate, and who wins - given the likely order of retirement, the court will remain conservative for at least another generation. If you go by age, the retirement order is Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Souter. THEN you get the wingnuts off the board.
This is the logical result of giving away the White House, and Clinton will not change it.
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:21
Yeah, I want to keep my shiny penny so I gues I’ll just throw this sack of bills into the river.
Jay B. said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:22
How about Chris and Mike go off and argue about which candidate strays farther from the Democratic constituency’s ideals, and the rest of us can just drink Mai-Tais until the general election?
I like the cut of your jib, sailor, but make mine a scotch. I’m not sure I can make it through the next 8 fucking months without mainlining Glenlivet.
mikey said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:26
Yep.
If I wasn’t terrified of cleaning up in a concentration camp I’d just switch over to heroin full time…
mikey
atheist said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:26
Try growing something in dirt. It usually only blooms when you spread shit around it.
Yes, I am aware that there are good reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama. It’s just that on my main issues, Obama seems better.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:31
I like the cut of your jib, sailor, but make mine a scotch.
Agreed, provided we can find a tiki bar with a sufficiently broad and deep supply of single-malts to keep you in your cups. This could take a while.
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:33
If I wasn’t terrified of cleaning up in a concentration camp I’d just switch over to heroin full time…
I thought of that. My idea was cyanide capsules. Is that even feasible, or is it just a phrase that I picked up from the teevee? If so, where would I obtain them? Seems prudent, heroin or no…
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:39
Cyanide’s apparently not a comfortable death.
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:42
Cyanide’s apparently not a comfortable death.
What a waste of a public education I had.
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:42
You’re right - no serious candidate would praise Reagan. He didn’t praise Reagan. The fact is, Reagan was a transformatoive figure. Had you bothered to actually find out what he DID say, instead of believing what the MSM or someone else told you he said, you’d have found out that he explicitly said Reagan was a transformative figure in a BAD WAY. That Reagan transformed the political lndscape by getting people to vote against their own best interests.
As far as the party of ideas, again, there is very good reason to say that. They DID have ideas, more so than the dems. Of course, he also said THEY WERE BAD IDEAS.
But noooooooo, you can’t be bothered to find the facts. You just want to have someone spoon feed you a sound bite and go all spastic and rant and shit.
Grow up. Get real. Put some effort into reason before you hit the easy emotional crap.
Dan Someone said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:46
No serious Democrat would praise Reagan as a ‘transformative’ figure or say that Republicans have been the ‘Party of ideas’ for the past 15 years.
Bullshit. A “serious Democrat” would recognize that Reagan did transform the country into something very different from what it had been immediately prior to his presidency; and that for the past 15 years, the GOP has been the only party with ideas — dreadful, wrong-headed and (at best) misguided ideas, but ideas nonetheless; whereas the Democrats have been largely unable to form coherent sentences, let alone entire ideas. What were the greatest, most lasting successes of the Bill Clinton Golden Age of the 90’s? The ones that arose from the Democratic Party’s move to the “center” (i.e., the right) in response to the ideas that the Republicans had foisted on America for the previous 12 years. Certainly, even during those halcyon days of the Clintonian Camelot, the Democrats didn’t manage to develop, let alone promulgate, any ideas of their own.
So, I would say a realistic or perceptive Democrat might call Reagan “transformative” and might call the GOP the “party of ideas for the past 15 years,” at least by comparison. And I suspect many of those kinds of Democrats are also pretty serious
And Chris and Dan: Refusing to vote in the general election if Hillary is the Dem candidate… hell, if you’d rather have McCain than Hillary, you’re better off voting for McCain, because when the GOP Goon Patrol checks the Diebold records, they are less likely to cart you off to the Leftist Camp if they can see you voted for the BBQer in Chief.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:50
Gary?
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:52
Just joshin’, PeeJ
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 21:54
Nah, it’s really me. As Dan Someone seconded above.
And I’ll have to go with Dan Somone’s bullshit appraisal as well. I was wrong on that. It’s good to see that sensible people do agree on some things though, Dan.
OneMan said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:02
So Counterpunch calls Obama a Republican in Sheep’s Clothing. National Journal calls him “most liberal.” How could this be?! Perhaps both publications are slanting their reporting to fit an agenda, yes?
Try looking at those quotes in context. Agree with Obama or not, his point was that Reagan as a figure of change met the country at the perfect time to effect that change. I don’t think that’ wrong, nor do I think it particularly elevates Reagan. I also don’t happen to think the changes Reagan put into place were good for the country. But he was a change agent, no doubt.
I won’t try to defend his “party of ideas” comment. Every candidate says something stupid over the course of a campaign and this was Obama’s turn.
OneMan said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:05
Heh, looks like I ended up at the end of the choir again. Well said, PeeJ & Dan.
Matt T. said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:14
If there’s so little difference between the two, if Hillary’s such a bitch and Obama’s such a naif, why don’t we concentrate on dragging both their sorry behinds closer to liberal goals?
See, this is why I still plan on voting Democrat come November despite my utter contempt for the Democratic party’s performance, and let’s be real charitable, they took the 2006 elections. They might listen. It’s why I prefer Obama over Clinton because I remember being in my 20s during the boom years of Mr. Bill’s Wild Ride, and I remember how little it seemed that school of Democrat listened to the DFH contingent of the party with our silly insistence that government can be used as a tool to actually help people who aren’t corporate entities and this “all men created equal” was not only for reals, but included women and gay men and not-white people and not-Judeo-Christian people, as well. I swear, after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” it was all I could do to keep from driving to Washington to personally moon Bill Clinton. And then he deiced I needed to go to jail for smoking weed more than we needed to help people having trouble making ends meet even though they’re working three jobs.
I dunno, I just think Obama might listen more than Clinton, maybe just because he is so new. McCain wouldn’t listen at all. He’d tell you to shut the fuck up.
Another thought. The only time I see anyone calling Obama something like “Jesus” is when someone’s criticizing folks for going all “Obama is Jesus!” as they apparently do in droves and I just miss it every time. I do get distracted easily, so there’s that, but I must admit that I’m starting to get skeptical that anyone has really claimed the Junior Senator from Illinois can heal the sick and cause the blind to see, even politically speaking.
Ben said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:22
On the matter of, “Why ‘Hillary’ and Not ‘Clinton’?” I would like to echo dan b and add that, if you go to her official website, it says”Hillary for President” in big letters at the top. She would seem to be in on whatever sexist conspiracy is making people call her “Hillary”.
That, or it’s a way to distinguish her from Bill.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:25
Good point, Matt.
‘Obama is Jesus’ is merely a classic straw man argument.
John A. said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:34
I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t trash my blog, Brad.
Thanks
JOHN
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:36
Obama is Ray Bolger?
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:36
Ray Bolger is Jesus?
JDinDC said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:39
Dan and PJ got it right: Reagan was damn transformative.
I am of an age that recalls the Goldwater insurgency. In those days, Conservative meant balance the budget, cut the bureaucracy, no foreign aid or adventures, keep the feds out of the schools and keep government in general out of our lives.
Despite early lip service, the Reagan years turned that all upside down and Bush simply added a heaping helping of incompetence to the meal plan. Within a generation, traditional conservatism has been marginalized to the Ron Paul fringes, and socialist Kensian tax-cutting to stimulate the economy have been adopted by the G f*ing OP.
Oh. And the Party of Lincoln that freed the slaves? Transformed by Reagan’s southern strategy into a home for disgruntled old Dem segregationists.
The Critic said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:41
Note that when Kos was pro-John Edwards, he wasn’t completely thrilled with Obama. He claimed Obama gave good speeches that were uplifting and moving, but an hour later you didn’t remember what it was all about. When Edwards dropped out of the race, he shifted to an Obama supporter, but he doesn’t actually write many pro-Obama pieces over there. In fact, no one does. Instead, the site is more an anti-Clinton site than a pro-Obama site based on content. Talk Left at least appears to actually discuss their own candidate choice on occasion.
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:41
I never held your blog in such high esteem either. Does that mean I’m trashing it? Touchy touchy.
Susan of Texas said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:43
Obama is Chinese food?
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:46
JDinDC: Spot on. Hell, when I was young I, for a time, a Republican. Which, as JD points out, meant something very different then. I voted for Reagan. Once. First time only. He talked a great game.
Thinking about it, there’s one of the things he transformed: Nobody much believed politicians campaign promises before but Reagan was really the first to do a complete, utter, total 180. (As best I can recall, anyway)
Your Uncle Bastard said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:48
What a paranoid thing for Aravosis to do: troll someone else’s blog whining about not being LOVED LOVED LOVED 24-7.
The circle jerk’s getting a bit stale over at A’Blog.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:50
Susan -
Bingo!
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:50
John A. said,
I do hope that’s him because it matches the mental image I have of him as a peevish attention whore.
Chris said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:56
Dan Someone, Clintonism is not only devoid of the ideas that could challenge the prevailing conservative philosophy, its cynical triangulation demoralizes–feeds off, actually–the Democratic party and its supporters. There is no rising tide or coattails with the Clintons. It is no coincidence that the “historic” Republican sweep of Congress happened during Clinton’s first term. Gore lost because of Clinton fatigue (to which he contributed, to be sure).
I think it’s a mistake to call it centrism because even that implies a roughly coherent set of goals. It’s cynical opportunism and personal politics maneuvering under a prevailing conservative ideology, and it challenges nothing.
Ideas matter only if you want major change and are willing to expend political capital to get it.
Jay B. said,
March 13, 2008 at 22:58
Well he was wrong while still managing to be content-free, so RB, I think it was.
That said: AJ Rosmiller is very good.
Rick Taylor said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:00
It’s not just Talk Left; a lot of blogs have gotten polarized. Actually, I think Talk Left is one of the more balanced blogs that typically favor Hillary, and I like to read it to balance out the other’s that are becoming very anti-Hillary. On the otherhand, taylormarsh.com which I used to like has become virtually unreadable in it its consistent strident opposition of Obama. I don’t know why. A log primary season? A close race? And a horrible system for choosing delegates together with the mess in Florida and Michigan that practically guarantees a fair solution is impossible.
pedestrian said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:01
What a paranoid thing for Aravosis to do
If it is him (he?), he probably has one of those auto alerts set up, like Ann Althouse does, so that every time someone whispers his name he can come and snoop it out.
Ann Althouse molests puppies.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:10
Hush, Pedestrian. If you say her name once more, she’ll come here and consume all of the rum and Scotch that Jay B. and I were trying to hoard.
Hoard?
Oh, shit. Here she comes.
PeeJ said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:11
Chris,
I think your take is more accurate than Dan S’ centrism cast. And it’s precisely the thing that bothered me then and bothers me about Hillary now. I don’t necessarily agree that there’s a “prevailing conservative ideology” underneath, but it is indeed opportunism and little more. 50% + 1 and I’m in baybee! .
Jay B. said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:14
I think it’s a mistake to call it centrism because even that implies a roughly coherent set of goals.
That’s a particularly incoherent definition of centrism, which is nothing but ad hoc stands on matters of orthodoxy.
It’s cynical opportunism and personal politics maneuvering under a prevailing conservative ideology, and it challenges nothing.
??? Prevailing ‘conservative ideology’? That’s not how the country sees it. 2004, sure. After 2006 though, the prevailing conservative ideology took a vicious body blow. It’s teetering and as the Democrats are poised to crush the GOP this year at the Congressional level no matter who is the nominee — it’ll soon be history. They have more money, better candidates and a big ol’ map — not to mention the horrific wreckage the Republicans have left behind.
This is why we’re having to be called “fascists” these days, because “conservative” is about as popular as “herpes” and they need something worse to call liberals.
The challenge, if you’ll look ahead past the end of your mirror, is how we can get things we want implemented, implemented. It takes all kinds of pressure and cajoling and support and organization regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is president. The first step is a Democratic Congress. The next step is a better and more responsive Democratic Party. THEN we can start getting things passed.
I think if you look at their records — and not the amateur psychoanalysis your projecting on either candidate — i think you’ll find a mix of good and bad, but neither have been particularly good about setting the agenda. They tend to follow it. Which is why it is so imperative we get better Democrats in Congress to help push them.
hello kitty said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:14
Just a reminder: Time is getting short and the future is so important. Please support my candidacy by sending your contributions to HelloKittyforAmerica08.com. Be generous. Our future is in the balance. Thnxbai.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:15
Hillary’s campaign seems almost like it has been engineered to drive a wedge through the D party.
I was a fan of hers, thought she was no John Edwards, but as this season goes on, I have to question her ability to judge character (a la Wolfson and Penn).
I will still vote for her is she can get the nomination without sparking an internecine civil war.
hugely said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:18
new sig line:
I explained it this way to my friends: I would vote for McCain if he were a Democrat (even with anti-choice BS) vs Obama if he were a Repuke. Thats why i will vote for Hilary in the GE if she is the Dem nominee even if John Edwards was the GOP candidate….
The GOP is not fit to serve (morally, ethically, professionally, in any capacity) in public office - end of story
tontocal said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:22
Bravo OB-GYN Kenobi, bravo!
Poopy McPants said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:24
You mean you guys are late to the Great Blog War of 2007/08? Get out there and choose a side, soldier! Get in the trenches and demean the other guy or gal, with republicanesque talking points and a complete disregard for facts! Liberal is the new Republican! Jeez, its almost like you guys havent seen Back To The Future yet!
Poopy McPants said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:43
“Nightjar, calling Clinton a “slut” is exactly equivalent to calling Obama…” a man whore? Oh wait, you were going to say “nigger,” never mind. Who would call that frigid bitch a slut anyway?
tontocal said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:43
“Ann Althouse!…Ann Althouse!!….ANN ALTHOUSE!!!”
(and I clicked my heels together for good measure)
Righteous Bubba said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:47
Still funny:
mikey said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:47
I do hope that’s him because it matches the mental image I have of him as a peevish attention whore.
Now, now, Bubba. We shouldn’t pick on people based upon their country of origin. People from Peeveland are just as good as you and I, and don’t deserve this reputation they have for querulous in temperament or mood, perversely obstinate and marked by ill temper. That’s just stereotyping…
mikey
Smut Clyde said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:52
Still waiting to hear from RB about how his pet peeve died.
Poopy McPants said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:54
“There is almost no context in which you can call someone a “slut” and have it not be sexist. ” BS. You can always use it. Think about it, hotshot! People call me a slut all the time, and i don’t think they are calling me a woman.
t4toby said,
March 13, 2008 at 23:56
I had a Peevish girlfriend once. She was kinda hard to understand, but man could she cook a mean Peeve Pie.
Chris said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:00
JayB, you’re right that centrism depends on where the range of acceptable political opinion is located, but once you’re given that, you can plot a “centrist” position on many issues. Clintonism wasn’t centrist in that sense. People had and still have a difficult time pinning down their political philosophy, and the Clinotns benefitted to a great extent from this confusion. I remember many people voting for Billl in 1996 despite his record because they were convinced his true liberalism would finally emerge once he was freed from worries about re-election. The same applies to Hillary. “Dead Center” was an analysis written late in Bill’s second term that predicted that Hillary was going to be a strong liberal once she was freed from Bill’s shadow. The delusion continues even today.
The Democratic resurgence in 2008 remains to be seen. I hope you are right.
I have no argument about the need for a stronger Democratic Congress. I’m not convinced that Clinton will contribute much to that end. Do yourself a favor and read about Clinton’s first term and its effect on the Democratic Congress.
Attaturk said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:02
Well the important thing to me is that blogs that have always sucked like mine don’t have a cliff to fall off of. It’s just a long flat plain of inadequacy.
t4toby said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:03
Poopy -
Calling a woman a slut is inherently sexist.
Calling me a slut? true.
Kathleen said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:12
Since the beginning I have avoided the primary partisan blogs for exactly the reasons demonstrated by this thread and the blogs it mentions.
It’s funny to me that the Clinton/Obama blog wars even get pulled into here. See e.g., “Reagan was transformative”. I am surprised there weren’t 22 comments about “present” votes.
I just don’t really see the point, but what else is the internet for, but then to have a place for people to spend there time in a way they choose that may seem silly to some, and valuable to others.
Kathleen said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:13
also, Quite frankly, I don’t consider 7-2 decisions to be any worse than 5-4, for all practical purposes is wrong, wrong, wrong. Either study up on Supreme Court cases, or else curse the time you have spent already, since it was clearly wasted.
John A. said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:15
Yes, it does.
Thanks,
JOHN
Nightjar said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:18
robert
‘You’re using “slut” as a metaphor, but you’re still trying to insult the target by comparing him or her to a lusty woman.”
LOL. your kidding right? Hillary –”lusty woman”? I like lusty women, always have. In fact, I’ve sometimes loved them, metaphorically, of course. And I tell you HC is no lusty woman.
Now follow the bouncing Thesarsus. Slut=
noun
A vulgar promiscuous woman who flouts propriety: baggage, hussy, jade, slattern, tart2, tramp, wanton, wench, whore. Slang floozy. See sex/asexual.
whore= Dictionary:
whore
(hôr, h?r) pronunciation
n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
If you chose #3 you win, well, nothing of value.
mikey said,
March 14, 2008 at 0:18
Damned by faint trashing…
mikey