• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    MsMass on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Ga6thDem on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Beata on Maybe this will motivate the…
    Beata on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    jmac on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    MsMass on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    William on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Who do we blame for the Restau…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    William on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    riverdaughter on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Critics review Trump’s latest…
    jmac on Critics review Trump’s latest…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    February 2008
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    242526272829  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • What’s the matter with Kansas?
      The stupid is winning. Early last month, commissioners rejected McKenney’s proposal for a mask mandate. But as COVID-19 cases in the county and across the state surged and Kelly reiterated her call for a statewide policy, they agreed to consider a compromise.Most of the people who showed up for a public hearing opposed the mandate … Continue reading What’s t […]
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread & Fundraising Update
      We are now just over $7k raised, putting us about $1,000 from the second tier, of: Three more articles, this set most likely on the conditions that create golden Ages, including one on how to create an ecological Golden Age (what we need next.) If you like my writing, and you can afford to, please […]
  • Top Posts

Friday Morning- FINALLY!

Jeez, I have something like 5 different things to do again today. *sigh*

Anyway, here are some interesting things from around the web:

  • I picked this up from FireDogLake and it is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. Only Obamaphiles would misinterpret it as a pro-Obama video.
  • Digby defines Cokie’s Law and in a round about way demonstrates why Hillary is kind of immune to it at this point. Whatever is out there about her is already out there and she’s still hanging on. I can’t imagine things will get much worse for her. Obama is going to get pummeled. ghost2 found a letter at the NYTimes (see the one from Donna Lawlor about 2/3 down the page) that perfectly demonstrates what is going to happen to him. All you need to do is assign all the good adjectives to McCain and all of the bad ones to Obama and then add some like “inexperienced”, “naive”, “awkward”, “fragile”. Maureen Dowd has already tested her prototype of her Obama column. All they need now is the signal to roll out what they have in inventory. Swopa at FDL finds a similar theme from Michael Kinsley. It is herd mentality. They don’t even know why they hate Clinton or why “Obama totally makes them cry”. It’s just that someone throws a switch. That is some powerful manipulation of Jungian arcetypes going on there.
  • The NYTimes has a piece this morning on the coming storm for Obama and makes the following observation:

    For much of this year, Mr. Obama has been handled with relative care by Mrs. Clinton and, before they dropped out, the other Democratic candidates. They generally do not have huge policy differences with him, and they have been wary of making a particularly harsh attack that winds up in a Republican television advertisement this fall.

    Yes, for the most part, Hillary has run a positive campaign. Her jabs at Obama have been gentle. She still manages to go toe to toe with him and is in a virtual tie in the primaries. She trails by a mere 105 delegates. So, what does this tell us? It says that you don’t have to run an overtly negative campaign to be a competitive politician. And if people are really looking for that kind of change in politics, she’s the one. There’s one other thing that is worth noting: David Axelrod seems supremely confident that he can parry the behemoth GOP attack machine because he knows what they’ll be up to but that only works if the media doesn’t interfere in the fight. And we have seen time and time again that the media puts its nonfavorite candidates on mute while it allows the favorite to go hammer and tongs on its rival. Plus, most people are not internet addicts.

  • Hillary will be attending the funeral of Victor Lozada, the officer in her motorcade who was thrown from his motorcycle last week. Not a campaign appearance, just a thoughtful gesture at the request of the officer’s mother. Too sad.
  • I don’t know what to make of the Hagee endorsement of John McCain.  I have Hagee lovers in my family and they hate John McCain.  My mom, in particular, is voting for Hillary provided she doesn’t suspend before Pennsylvania.  Of course, in the end, they may do whatever their church tells them is correct for the general but I don’t think this helps McCain in the primaries at all.

8 Responses

  1. Good morning. My spouse and I laughed at the video. It was funny.

    I know that admitting to it is risking becomming somewhat of a persona non grata in most liberal circles, but I will risk it anyway and say it: ” I am an Independent and I still think Nader is great”.

    Now that he has paired with Matt Gonzalez as VP, and depending on who the Democratic presidential nominee ends up being, Nader’s ticket remains an interesting option for the GE in our household.

    I grew up in a country where there are more than two parties and then before moving to the States, lived in Canada for a while. Although I realize that in the States, for all intents and purposes, voting for a third party is regarded by most as being “unpractical”, I still believe third parties are an asset, not a liabality to any democracy.

    Anyway… sorry for all my chatter….Have a good one and again, thanks for this site and your excellent sense of humour.

  2. Last night my ex-boyfriend Keith Olbermann previewed Hillary’s new ad, the theme of which is “who do you want to call at 3 am in the morning?” The ad focuses on a family with a sick kid or something, and in there is a voiceover extolling Hillary’s leadership qualities, including her extensive knowledge of the military, health care initiatives, foreign policy experience, etc. Not a word about Obama (or McCain, for that matter). Then the schmundits come back on — ah, it must have been Howard Fineman — talking about what a negative ad it was, that it was “fearmongering.” Yes, it is now “fearmongering” to extoll your own leadership qualities. Fineman was practically salivating as he decried this negative campaigning. Then Richard Wolfe, who is actually covering the Clinton campaign, came on to discuss how desperate the campaign is.

    I couldn’t believe it. I switched off KO in disgust — even though I had wanted to see the next segment, which was on Bush’s latest petulant press conference about telecom immunity — and decided to watch American Idol with my 14 year old. It was a far more edifying experience (plus I got to cuddle with my baby).

  3. It’s true, the Clinton campaign has tacitly honored the 11th Commandment from Day 1, putting nothing in play that would disadvantage Obama as nominee in the general election.

    Obama campaign? Just the opposite. No-holds-barred assault on her character, record, and history itself, and those of her allies. (I think the depth of this attack caught them off guard, but she’s still sticking to it.)

    Others have published inventories of the things Republicans can do to Obama that Hillary won’t or can’t.

  4. Uh, Everybody,

    In 2000, millions of registered Democrats voted for George Bush. (I remember an estimate of 10 million, but that’s just a vague memory at this point.)

    Can we spend just one-tenth of the energy on that issue as we do getting worked up about Ralph Nader? Or on those approx. 10,000 African-American voters disenfranchised in Florida? That might actually accomplish something.

    If the Dems had done anything to address election fraud and their failure to communicate with their base, then I’d have time to get around to Nader’s questionable strategies. But the Blame Nader fixation has gotten tedious.

  5. Joe: I think the creator of the video’s point wasn’t Ralph Nader so much as that some voters don’t think strategically or practically. Sometimes they put so much emphasis on high minded principle that they box themselves into a corner. He’s also pointing out that we should be wary of letting our emotions get the better of our reasoning abilities.
    “Obama totally makes us cry sometimes”

    But Nader has always run vanity campaigns and everyone is on to him now. The ad wasn’t directed to Nader voters so much as Obamaphiles.

  6. I see your point I suspect that we’re talking about different things.

    But I am really tired of the people getting in a dither about Nader 2000 while not going anywhere near bigger and more relevant electoral problems that they might have some influence over. The It’s All Nader’s Fault fixation is still alive in many circles and I’m really tired of it.

  7. Hmmm, you wouldn’t have voted for Nader by any chance?

  8. No I didn’t. Do you have to have voted for Nader to be tired of Dems refusing to deal with our own screw-ups in 2000?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: