|
and guess what...today he has criticisms for both of the democratic candidates...but of course the 'party in denial' in his column is the republican party...
Why does he hit HRC?
Gas tax stupidity....
And why does he hit BHO?
Giving Republicans credit for things that they don't deserve.
And why does he hit JMcC?
He is totally clueless
I posted yesterday on one of those enormous threads (A disturbing conversation with a Clinton supporter)...and got an illuminating reply...to which I also replied...
I think it is worth broadcasting some of the conversation here..not only because I am enamored with my own posts...but because the issue of Democrats uniting in the fall is such an important one.
Here is where the back and forth began:
I have posted a bit regarding hillary's remarks on obama's religion...
My main point being...if saying 'as far as I know' is an error...she made a human error after being badgered by reporter who had already received an answer to the question...
Interesting article on the superdelegates in Ohio.
Realizing the likelihood that neither candidate will get the 50+1 they need in pledged delegates...the superdelegates begin to strategize...and form a coalition with economic policy objectives.
Story here...
http://www.politico.com/...
...yes its politco
...dem. blogosphere goes up in smoke...
A diary on the rec list placed prominently in its intro a quote of a statement by Senator Clinton, and also posted a link to a news report (yes Olberman and Maddow) with a video link.
I was surprised when I clicked for the video...that what Keith said was not what was in the quote.
I posted an 'I am confused' comment in that thread...but wanted to use my own alloted diary to bring additional attention to this issue.
Does Clinton whine about press coverage? 'Some people say' she does...but based on the way this story is being treated...wow...she's got an ironclad case.
Last week I went 'back and forth' in a thread with several people who felt that Clinton's vote on the AUMF removed her from consideration for their vote and ultimately doomed her candidacy. Obama has clearly distinguished his position from hers in this campaign based on his 2002 opposition to the war. Further some supporters in the thread I reference endorse his votes to continue funding of the war, one stating starkly...
However, since the war HAD been waged, the ensuing funding was NOT an option because that funding was NOT about supporting Bush and/or the war, it was about supporting the TROOPS.
Damn it, it's SO simple and it has driven me nuts for the past nearly half a decade that we've been in this war explaining this which should be so incredibly easy to understand to so many who are so incredibly DENSE.
"NO WAR = NO FUNDING FOR THAT WAR."
Now...I am not writing this because I was called 'incredibly DENSE'...I've been called worse...however, I think we were close to making some progress...when unfortunately the thread came to an end.
...nothing?
Most of us probably remember the Whitewater nonscandal...years of investigations by an aggressive and unfriendly prosecutor were unable to implicate the Clintons in any wrongdoing.
Now bubbling into the news are alleged improprieties in the purchase of a home in Chicago by the Obamas.
In a highly recommended recent diary, Greuden did us the service of linking to an informative piece on the issue. For the first time the seller of the property spoke out and what they had to say was quite interesting. The diarist couldn't help having a bit of fun with us...a few folks commenting before reading all the way through got a bit of 'egg on their face'...but I wonder how many...after recognizing the snark...clicked the link and read the article?
A bit of concern trolling by the former ambassador.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."
Well said Senator O.
His desire to put aside politics is what really has me worried.
Found this one to be interesting. The link is from bartcop...always worth a read.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
One of the main points...identifying how the racism issue came to take a central role in the campaign after the MLK LBJ exchange...
Here is a little piece of it.
Clinton pointed out, however, that it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it.
Obama riposted that this failed to take account of the sort of impetus for change created by great rhetoric of the kind used by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So far, so good. Normal political exchange.
more follows
and also a bit from the Daily Howler
Some historical facts...
"This is not that rough a democratic primary"
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
A choice quote
In 1992, Bill Clinton started running negative ads against Paul Tsongas and Bob Kerrey in New Hampshire. The Republicans this year have been running negative ads since Iowa. Heck, even in 2004 Gephardt and Dean went nuclear on each other early. The history of Presidential primaries is not a game of patty-cake.
So why this year is it all in play when...
...the only negative ads in the Democratic primary so far ran for a day until both sides yanked them.
Well the Howler likes to talk about 'Rubes'. These are liberals who don't recognize the impact the corrupt press corps has on the discourse...and on our elections...and the lives of soldiers and all the rest of us.
In a diary receiving a frenzied number of comments and recommendations
thereisnospoon states:
"To be clear about the caucus process here: caucus doors opened at 11am today; people are allowed to file in and register on location until 12 noon, at which time the doors close and no one else is admitted."
According to the Caucus rules this is not the case.
See page 53 at the link below.
http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/...
The rules clearly state that the caucus will be called to order at 11:30.
Those in line waiting to register at that time will be allowed to participate. Seems to me that that means those coming in after 11:30 are not allowed to participate.
If my interpretation is incorrect please enlighten me.
...and yes I know this is not much of a diary...but to my best understanding there is a lot of venom and ill will circulating regarding this particular issue...and so I believe my comments in the diary alleging "widespread fraud & suppresion" might be overlooked.
"Come on people now...smile on your brothers...everybody get together...try to love one another Right Now!"
Right Now.
A search turned up nothing on Krugman's NYT column today, so I thought I would bring it to your attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Rather than focusing on emotions and tone of voice, or even what various 'surrogates' have said or done, Krugman discusses policy.
Both Dems and Republicans are discussed and he believes (not sure if this is naive or not), that the differences in policy proposals actually reflect the type of president each candidate might be.
McCain in his "good natured" way fesses up to not knowing much about economics...
Of more interest on the Dem side, and likely to stir up more discussion here are the relative merits of the proposals of the "Big Three"(more below)
I have been saddened by the vitriol. It sickens me when I read that people on this site vow that they will not vote Democratic if a particular candidate gets the nomination.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books presents a clear-eyed discussion of one of the things at stake.
We are all aware of how the Bush administration has been systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights. The process goes on, though more quietly, in the Judicial branch.
According to USAToday there has been a significant attack "in or near" the Green Zone in Baghdad. Their report is only 2 paragraphs. Apparently this happened about an hour ago 10pm in Baghdad.
AP and Reuters say there were about 12 explosions.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/...
I have seen so many good ideas here on Kos about how to deal with Bush on the troop funding issue. I am surprised to see Levin caving..In Louisiana they are scratching their heads.
The "Count Every Vote Act" was recently introduced in the Senate with a companion in the House. This legislation was introduced in 2005 and was called by the New York Times "the gold standard for election reform". Back then of course it had no chance to get to the floor for the obvious reason.
It appears that opponents to Ahmadinejad are winning their local elections.
As noted on the NYT front page http://www.nytimes.com/
The story brings back memories of our own recent election results. In fact some quotes sound word-for-word as if they apply to US.
e.g "The pro-reformist newspaper Etemad-e-Melli said in an editorial: ''The most important message of Friday's vote was that the people have chosen moderation and rejected extremism.''"
and also...''Early results show that Mr. Ahmadinejad's list has suffered a decisive defeat nationwide,'' the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the largest reformist party, said in a statement. ''It is a big 'no' to the government's authoritarian and inefficient methods.''
Thank god, we don't have to blow up Iran also to bring it democracy.
I wonder where those baseless rumors started? Certainly sounds Rovian...but it seems that an inquiry was also requested Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
"Kos" and "Daily Kos" are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
