Archive for March, 2008

In other news, 2 + 2 = 4

Mar 30, 2008 in Uncategorized

The past ten or twenty years have seen a very depressing trend among conservatives, but most especially among religious ones: if you don’t like what some data say, fund your own study; if the initial hypothesis is stacked right, you’ll get the response you want. (An oft-uncommented irony to this situation is that such an approach is the very essence of the same “moral relativism” that these people will decry when it suits their purposes to do so; whenever you hear a person whining about “moral relativism,” you may be assured that that person is himself a moral relativist of the highest order.) The arrival of the internet provided such unethical tactics with their perfect partner: the echo chamber. One badly-conceived, dishonestly conducted study by itself is just a bad joke; the same study getting approving nods from people who dislike the scientific method most other days of the week is “a viable alternative.”

Depressing, as I say. Most of these guys wouldn’t know science from a Coney Island dog with all the trimmings. Still, we offer them the real data, hoping that the truth will someday set them free. Guys? I know you’ll have started linking to your favorite counter-arguments before you finish reading this, but I thought you might be interested to know that abstinence-based sex education doesn’t work.

Listen, my religious conservative friends. If you want to argue that abstinence-based education is the right thing to do, go nuts. If you want to argue that it’s better for the soul, get down with your bad self and don’t let me stand in your way. But leave science to the people who actually know their business, and don’t pretend to actually care about what will result in fewer teen pregnancies. Because you don’t actually care about that. I suspect that many of you actually rather like teen pregnancies, but that is a post for another day.

-TT

Holla back, Ames!

Mar 28, 2008 in Iowa

[youtube i8WoyPEVRFo]

-mg

Throwing good money after bad.

Mar 28, 2008 in Economy, Housing Bubble, Welfare of the rich

Ran across this anti-mortgage bailout site perusing the LA Times.

Propping up an unrealistically inflated housing market is wrong in so many obvious ways but it’s also easy to understand why Helicopter Ben and Co. are freaking the f*ck out.  Since we’ve painted ourselves into the domestic economic corner of perpetual expansion and maintenance of suburbia it’s important that we keep the delusion of limitless growth alive.  It also serves as a reminder of how capitalists view government; an obstruction when riches are to be plundered and a necessity when you need to be rescued from your own foolishness.

-mg

Roast in hell, Frank Gehry.

Mar 26, 2008 in Uncategorized

Kunstler speaks on the tragedy of suburbia.

[youtube Q1ZeXnmDZMQ&feature=related]

-mg

Babies Need Rattles

Mar 26, 2008 in Uncategorized

Hello faithful readers. It’s Thomas Tallis here, your resident “liberal, by which I mean ‘not a Democrat'” writer. Can I just ask all you sky-castle dwelling faithful Democrats to do something? Read this. Now: do you count yourself among the twenty-eight or the nineteen percent indicated by the lime-green column? If you do, will you kindly get the fuck over yourself? Elections aren’t about you, nor about your candidate. Every four years you get sold a bill of goods in the hopes that you’ll continue to hold up the two-party system, which has proven such a successful way to rally the people behind blatant consolidation of power that history will look back on our empire with bewilderment about it. But the only way to wring any good out of the two-party system is to resist the absurd “backing my candidate, he’s special!” bill of goods. Anybody remember Gary Hart and his “new ideas”? Me too.

I know my fellow bloggers here will be very excited that their camp is marginally less stupid than the Clintonites. Congratulations! Only one in five of you breathe with your mouths open. Buy yourselves a beer!

I *heart* Hitch.

Mar 25, 2008 in Uncategorized

[youtube I7izJggqCoA]

I think Hitchens must have read Sharon’s blog.

-mg

It’s Different!

Mar 25, 2008 in Uncategorized

The absurdity of the fake outrage over Jeremiah Wright’s sermons is made clear by this chart. Where is your outrage, proud patriots? Or are you only mad when somebody disses America if you didn’t like that person to begin with? I hate Democrats as much as the next liberal, don’t get me wrong, but the hypocrisy and moral cowardice of the right makes it a little easier to pull the lever for the big D come November.
-TT

Obama’s secret weapon.

Mar 25, 2008 in Barack Obama, Politics

See the problem, figure out who needs to be talked to, and give them the straight dope until they’re satisfied. He did it with journalists over the Rezko non-issue, all of America about the Wright non-issue, and now with Jewish leaders over yet another scurrilous bag of hints and rumors.

Note to self: Why do people get to freely make up dubious assertions about Obama constantly and be taken seriously? It seems to me to be worse than the usual junk we get from the right, although no doubt in part due to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is all too eager to jump in on the lying bandwagon and fan any sparks they can find. The real disappointment, sadly, is seeing some Democrat voters swallowing it. Fortunately, Obama keeps giving them the tools to kick the habit.

-jb

“The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn’t it?”

Mar 23, 2008 in Barack Obama, Racism

Really not very surprising when you think about it. Something tells me this isn’t the start of a dialogue, though:

Here’s the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers.

Yes, I think people can have conversations about race like Obama asked, and I think we can express our frustrations with some of the things we see coming from the other side, white or black. It can work. But isn’t this possible without calling black people niggers? Having lived in Cali over ten years, I can tell you that the preferred distinction is between those who are “ghetto” and those who aren’t. It gets to the point while avoiding the loaded nuclear bomb of white people calling black people niggers. Rightwingers may be itching for the day they can do so in public again without being called racist, but it won’t happen, ever.

-jb

The Windmill Parries

Mar 21, 2008 in Uncategorized

Tom Tomorrow in 100% on-money trying-to-explain-to-people-who-aren’t-listening non-shockah.

I know I know – “what’s wrong with hope?”, how can you tell a kid there’s no Santa Claus, I Want To Believe, etc. What’s really sad is the auto-respond that partisans get into about their candidates when somebody manages to actually corner them; they’ll bring up the tiniest, most innocuous thing their candidate/party/cause did and say something like “I felt he could have handled that better, and I said so! I’m no fanatic. But do I support my candidate? You bet!”

This whole stance is the most brilliant part of the shell game, and anybody engaging in it (=the entire blogosphere & media, and much of the public) is a moron, to be indelicate about it. Not that you can entirely blame the morons; the public narrative in which you’re encouraged to participate tells you that “the process” works along these sorts of rah-rah partisan lines, and that the way you participate in “the process” is pick up an “Obama!” flag for your lawn or a “Hillary!” pin for your label. Or a whatever blank for your whatever. The point is to get you to stand behind somebody, so that when they disappoint you, you’ll already be in a position to regard the relationship more like you might a marriage, and start making excuses on behalf of your candidate, your party, your cause. Which you’ll do, instantly; despite a species-long, observed-by-every-satirist-ever-to-have-written-since-Juvenal tendency of politicians to be the sorts of people who need to kept on a very short leash, come election season men and women on the left and right line up to overstate their candidates’ good qualities, lie about or excuse their bad qualities (or prevaricate: “he’s human!” “the other candidate is worse!” etc), and accuse those who won’t get on board of refusing to “give a guy a chance before condemning him,” and so forth, as if “giving somebody a chance” were ever a good strategy where the physical, political, social and economic health of the entire planet is involved.

It’s infantile. It’s pathetic. It is beneath you, no matter who you are. Partisanship: fight the real enemy!

-TT

What’s missing from the rightwing response to Obama.

Mar 20, 2008 in Barack Obama, Racism

Andrew Sullivan’s simple admission:

And perhaps too I have some deference to an experience of being black in America that I cannot share and have never experienced myself.

Bingo.

-jb

DNA fingerprinting young hooligans in the UK…shocking?

Mar 20, 2008 in Constitution

Or not?

The director of Scotland Yard’s forensics division says that Britain should be collecting DNA samples from any primary school children who show signs of behavior that exhibit a propensity for later crimes, according to an article in the Observer.

The Yard’s Gary Pugh says the idea that trivial offenses committed early in life can forecast more serious crimes later in life is supported by studies, and that identifying these individuals when they’re children would not only aid crime-solving later, but possibly deter some of these suspects from committing crimes when they’re adults.

Given the absurd criminality of British youth, it’s not hard to see people resorting to this. In fact, it’s hard not to sympathize. I used to work in schools, and after awhile it’s not hard to see repeat offender kids headed on a collision course with a jail cell, sans drastic intervention the schools are usually unable/unwilling (generally moreso the latter) to provide. While they should be given the tools to escape that fate, DNA sampling isn’t exactly punitive, nor a gross invasion of privacy if used merely for identification in criminal cases. This reaction seems to me rather over the top:

The director of Liberty, a civil liberties group in the UK, swatted Pugh for his suggestion. “Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,” she told the Observer.

I hate excessive government authority with the best of them, but I have seen the tyranny of street crime as well, and I have met plenty of kids I’d have no problem having a DNA sample of and telling them, “Do what you will with your life, but if you commit a crime and so much as drop an eyelash at the crime scene, you will be identified.” As long as the use of this DNA is limited to criminal cases, I’m willing to give it the go ahead until somebody can come up with more compelling reasons not to. Though I will grant that after George W. Bush nearly any paranoia about government encroaching on privacy isn’t really paranoia but hard-bitten realism.

-jb

Gerson can’t make it past the first paragraph without major errors in reasoning.

Mar 19, 2008 in Barack Obama, Politics, Racism

Why is it everything I read from Michael Gerson is stupid stacked on top of stupid?

Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought.

Words of unity and hope aren’t Barack Obama’s premise. Unity and hope themselves are. After hearing a speech in which he recognizes the anger of blacks and whites and still seeks to bring them together instead of ostracizing them, Obama exemplifies unity and hope whereas his detractors ask why he does not lose faith and embrace division. And then they present this as some sort of contradiction on his part. A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s notes a real contradiction:

I thought that one of the few things all us Christians agreed on was the maxim “condemn the sin but love the sinner.”

Barack Obama gave the kind of speech some people will remain diametrically opposed to hearing. The substance of it challenges their rigid calcification. Where he asks Americans to elevate themselves above the old ways, some will refuse. Fortunately, so far, I’ve only seen refusal from rightwing establishment types like Gerson or the bowels of the rightwing blogosphere. The Corner is notable for nothing. How many times have you heard a rightwinger open up his argument with the conclusion, “I am not a racist!” before proving anything? It’s a strategy one should expect first in any sophisticated effort to diminish somebody black.

But do such defensive outward techniques hold water anymore? Or will we start looking inward and see our common faults?

-jb

My thoughts exactly.

Mar 18, 2008 in Corporate shenanigans, Economy, Housing Bubble, Not a recession!

E.J. Dionne in today’s WaPo:

Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.

The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost “confidence” in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another’s portfolios.

As Chomsky says, more often than not capitalism means “free markets for thee, not for me.”  So much for the concept of moral hazard.  Every time the “Masters of the Universe” innovate themselves into financial armageddon it’s taxpayers like me that have to make sure they don’t have to face any scrutiny (in Bear Stearns case that means litigation) for frittering away billions.

-mg  

Clinton campaign robo-calls Iowa delegates.

Mar 16, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Iowa

Got this email from an Obama delegate in Cedar Rapids:

I just wanted to let you know that I talked to over 7 pledged Obama delegates at yesterday’s Democratic County Caucus who received robocalls from the Hillary campaign to help support her at the county caucus. This is clearly a flip-flop on the statement given by the Hillary campaign as linked above. I talked to people within the Obama campaign and it didn’t really gain any ground. Maybe you can bring this up on iowaliberal?

She recently remarked that pledged delegates can switch. Unfortunately, Iowans haven’t bought into her sales pitches over the last 3 months because Obama gained 7 yesterday. There are a number of counties that once carried Hillary that changed to Obama yesterday as well. I guess the robocalls didn’t work. Too bad.

The article that was mentioned in the email can be found here.

-mg

No connection.

Mar 14, 2008 in Uncategorized

No connection between Saddam and al Qaeda says the Pentagon.

-mg

Yikes!

Mar 13, 2008 in Economy, Housing Bubble

Bank seizures doubled last month.  Foreclosures up 60%.  And I guess the Fed’s plan is just to keep passing the buck off onto the American consumer in the form of inflation.

-mg 

Things we learned this week.

Mar 11, 2008 in Election crap

That besides Wyoming, Mississippi is also another state that doesn’t really matter.

-jb

p.s. Kos notes that Texas didn’t really count either.

The relentless stupidity of cable news.

Mar 11, 2008 in Journamalism, Uncategorized

Kos watching the “Communist News Network”

Flipping through channels last night, I stopped at CNN where the idiot anchor (Rick Sanchez?), talking about Obama’s strong internet presence, asked (paraphrased) “Is Obama cheating” because of his online organizing? His guests stared at him incredulously for a seconds while I scrambled for the remote to change the channel.

It’s no wonder that the wider public is becoming more and more comfortable making decisions on their own.

Kos notes that despite the burning stupid all over the press, Obama’s national numbers are rising above Hillary’s.

BTW, if it was Rick Sanchez, it wouldn’t surprise me.

-jb

Sweet justice, come hither.

Mar 11, 2008 in Election crap

Seems quite a few Ohio Republicans became Democrats for one day to do the bidding of Oxycontin-addled Rush Limbaugh and vote for Hillary, or whatever Democrat they thought Mephistopheles McCain would have an easier time beating.

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week’s primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed – it’s difficult to say how many – could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:

“For one day only.”

Furthermore:

Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

I don’t want to scare away independents or Republicans from switching their registration to Democrat, as long as that’s what their intention really is. But where there is evidence of deliberate voter fraud, it would at least have been nice if the pollworkers had bothered enforcing the law.

Anderson, 76, and her husband, Donald, 78, served as poll workers on Tuesday and both helped fellow Republicans change parties all day; when it was time for them to vote, they crossed over, too.

Aren’t Republicans supposed to be concerned about voter fraud?

North Ridgeville Republican Hazel Sferry said she was kicking herself all day Tuesday after voting for McCain.

Don’t get her wrong. Sferry supports McCain.

But after she voted, she ran into her niece who told her about “the plot.”

Her niece…crossed over Tuesday after hearing Limbaugh. Newell said she voted for Obama because she thought McCain had a better chance against him.

Regardless, Sferry said she thought it was a great idea to mess with the other party if it helped McCain win.

“I don’t mind being deceptive to politicians,” she said. “They are deceptive to us.”

Oh, okay.

I guess I’d have something to say about “Say anything, do anything” Republicans, but Hillary Clinton is (or was) considered a major contender for the Presidential nomination, and millions of Democrats keep cheering her on, either fooled by or condoning her shenanigans, and Jeebus knows I’d better not suggest Barack Obama is any better because that means I think he’s the Messiah, so I’ll just leave it there…

-jb

You Guys Are Funny

Mar 11, 2008 in Uncategorized

Remember Larry Craig? I know you do. ‘Member the lion’s share of our conservative friends shouting “frame-up,” telling everybody to just chill and let the process sort itself out, hoisting the “innocent ’til proven guilty” flag, decrying the lust for blood ‘n’ all? You don’t remember all that noble rot? That’s cool, neither do these guys.

-TT

Does Steve King represent Iowa?

Mar 11, 2008 in Uncategorized

He’s at it again.

“(Obama will) certainly be viewed as a savior for them,” Rep. Steve King told The Associated Press. “That’s why you will see them supporting him, encouraging him.”

Osama for Obama, right?

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama’s pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

“The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror,” King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.

King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.

“His middle name does matter,” King said. “It matters because they read a meaning into that.”

Okay, I can see a mouthbreathing nitwit lizard-brained rightwing talk show host or comment troll slobbering this stuff, but one of Iowa’s chosen representatives? Go to that link and scroll down for some other previous greatest hits from Steve “Joe McCarthy was a great American hero!” King. I’m sorry, I mean Steve “My family would be safer in Iraq than D.C.” King. I’m sorry, I mean Steve “Abu Ghraib was just some fraternity hazing!” King. He’s the man of 100 faces, all of them morons.

-jb

Your Liberal Media At Work

Mar 10, 2008 in Media

Betting pool goin’ over here as to how the New York Times having kneecapped Elliott Spitzer’s career will get spun by right-wing bloggers. Your choices:

A. They knew FoxNews/NewsMax/Jeff Gannon was going to scoop ’em on it, so they bit the bullet and sank one of their own
B. Spitzer’s public shaming will help/harm one of the two Dem frontrunners, ergo sinking one of the most charismatic and successful public Democrats in recent New York history was actually an act of Democratic partisanship
C. Hussein!
D. Hey guys maybe our whole collective whine about the Times is just sour grapes because nobody takes our partisan howling seriously

Give yourself 5 points for A. or B., 1,000,000 for C., and re-enroll in right-wing blogging 101 if you picked D. Thanks for playing!

-TT

Steve King is a nutter.

Mar 09, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clueless Conservatives

Representing the 5th District in Iowa, Steve King had this to say about Barack Obama:

“I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their race, their ethnicity, their name – whatever their religion their father might have been,” he said. “I’ll just say this: When you think about the option of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States — I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?”

He continued: “I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.”

“Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter,” King said. “It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict.”

So if we’re serious about the War on Terra we need to be mindful of our candidates middle names.

-mg

Time to rethink that SUV purchase.

Mar 09, 2008 in Energy, Peak Oil, Uncategorized

Raving-liberal-moonbat Matt Simmons (of Simmons and Company, one the largest investment bankers in the energy markets) blows some minds at CNBC:

[youtube ECmelqdNyE4]

He certainly does put things into perspective.

Ever stop and think how $4..$5…even $6 dollar a gallon gas would change the way you carry on with your activities of daily living?  Probably in more ways than you think.

-mg

You Can Pick Your Friends

Mar 09, 2008 in Uncategorized

Does John McCain really wanna turn the Catholic league against him? Oh, really? Think twice and think hard, O brave nominee – stronger men that you have thought they could get elected with the Church against them, and the very few CINOs who’ll tolerate outright pathological hatred of the Mother Church won’t amount to a thimble of spit at the ballots, no offense to some frequent guests here at IL.
-TT

The Apostolic Impulse

Mar 07, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Hillary Clinton

An admitted Clinton supporter spells out some of the reasons why the Obama faithful are such a huge turnoff to so many of us. The usual response to these charges is a neat reversal: “How can you fault a person for expressing hope?” – as if they only way to express hope were the deployment of cult-of-personality rhetoric, and as if the hope expressed weren’t mainly selling itself. Elsewhere, one of Obama’s many feminist supporters pulls out the “play with me or I’ll take my ball and go home!” trope, which fewer Clinton supporters use; it hearkens back to the Naderites with its my-way-or-the-highway spoiled child posturing, then goes the extra mile and volunteers a vote for the guy who, having been held prisoner and tortured, still thinks torture’s cool.
Election years! So filled with great sentiment and noble impulse!

-TT

The world is going to hell.

Mar 07, 2008 in Uncategorized

More accommodations for ineptitude:

According to a recent report, human beings are becoming so incredibly stupid that they require cushioned lamppost bases so that when they run into them they don’t mess up their idiotic faces. Apparently, a study in the UK found that one in ten people actually managed to hurt themselves by walking into a post while peering down at their mobile phone screen.

Call me old fashioned, but how about letting them run into the posts until they friggin’ learn to look up?

-jb

Whole buncha talkin’.

Mar 05, 2008 in Election crap

Somedays it’s good to just listen to people talk and feel out a situation. Last night Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in 3 states, including the closely watched Ohio and Texas primaries. What that means is being hotly debated, somewhat. Some things I’ve grabbed and chewed on:

1. The Clinton campaign has had no choice but to try to paint this as the greatest victory ever. The news cycle today is undoubtedly going to lean in the Clintons’ favor for a bit, but the fact that Hillary didn’t hardly scratch Obama’s delegate lead is casting a shadow over the celebration. Seven weeks until Pennsylvania? She may win PA as well, but by then the fact that last night didn’t provide any gains for her will have sunk in. The question remains, how does this person believe she can still catch up, much less win?

2. The Obama campaign is aware that the Clintons are pursuing a Bush-style campaign and is gearing up to provide the jiu-jitsu. It seemed to me that Obama made a decent pushback against the “3am” horseshit, namely that there’s nothing to suggest she’d be any better equipped to handle an emergency than Obama, and plenty to suggest she’d be worse. The ad seemed designed to rely on Hillary’s name recognition and boldness in declaring herself the fear candidate to sway voters. Obama fought back with a reasoned argument. While I will always believe this is the correct response, it hasn’t proven the most effective in general elections. Sadly, it didn’t prove to be enough in a Democratic primary. Some people like my good friend Thomas Tallis point to our politicians as scumbags, but at some point one must observe that we vote these people into office, and we get what we deserve. The Democratic electorate is letting me down here. Hillary has been all too willing to blur the line between the Democrats and Bush, but for the voters to reward her…sad. Really, painfully disappointing.

That said, it does seem to me that it is time for Barack Obama to expand, deepen, and truly circumvent Hillary Clinton. I wouldn’t say that he needs to “go negative” as the horse-race lingo of today frames it. I’d say he needs to go assertive, with a dash of relentlessness. Some of it will be called negative regardless, but he can rise above that oversimplification. If Obama can stay cool, and simply go after every single argument or smear Clinton makes with rebuttals that are factual and logical, it’s fine to draw the necessary conclusions about her campaign: opportunistic, bankrupt of ideas, and divisive.

Obama’s camp needs to be firm on the fact that Hillary is still firmly behind, but that needs to be supplementary information, rather than primary. I got an email in my inbox titled simply, “The math.” I didn’t bother reading it. I know what the goddamn math is. Obama still needs to keep winning. Call Texas a virtual tie, talk about Vermont, and talk about what states you’re going to tackle next. Tell me what the ground game in Pennsylvania is. Something. If the races from now on keep vacillitating between Clinton and Obama, Obama maintains the lead and still gets to celebrate some more victories. If Clinton can come out of the night with virtually no gains in delegates screaming like she bloody won, Obama can throw a party for every victory too.

3. Strategically, this is bad news for the general election. Turn on some rightwing radio today or read some of their blogs. How do they sound? Like they just got their biscuit buttered, right? Some have speculated that Rush Limbaugh imploring his listeners in Ohio and Texas to go vote for Hillary worked. Obama’s camp has circulated the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn’t really been vetted, as she so frequently claims. And it’s true. If Hillary thinks she’s dishing out everything on Obama that the GOP can, she hasn’t been given an ounce of the guff the GOP will give her. The fact that she’s struggling so hard to win without Obama really going after her weaknesses is telling.

Make no mistake, the Republicans want to run against Hillary more than they do Obama. Right now, anyway. But if Obama cannot effectively demonstrate that he can outwit Hillary’s Rovian shtick for once and all, the GOP might start warming up to the idea of running against him. I heard on Michael Medved’s show that the GOP can essentially throw everything at Obama and say, “What, Hillary did it first!”

Can Obama do it? Sure he can. He’s been good on the rapid fire responses, but he needs to beef it up.

As for the general election, one can only hope that if Hillary manages, somehow, to slash and burn a path to the nomination, that she’ll go nuclear on McCain. But how would she? “3am” ads against McCain? Ludicrous.

Vote your conscience. I just ask how the destructive and likely futile Clinton slimefest against Obama appeals to your conscience. What reason is there to prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama besides wanting to see a female president? Experience? Please, if she can claim she has 35 years experience, Obama has 20. Democrats need to stand up and differentiate themselves from those that gave George W. Bush four more years in office and vote with their principles for the best candidate for President. A quasi-victory based on following Bill Kristol’s advice to “run on fear” tells me that Hillary Clinton is indeed the emperor with no clothes in this race.

-jb

Hillary Clinton cannot catch up to Barack Obama.

Mar 02, 2008 in Election crap

Disagree? You do the math.

-jb