"Obama's responses don't seem great in print, but on video they're perfect. Just like when he brushed his shoulders off after the debate. The 'I don't have time for McCain's childish attacks, this country has bigger problems' response is perfect."

With all respect, "Obama's responses . . . on video" may appear "perfect" in the eyes of those who have for some time delighted for whatever reason in Obama's style, but I fear that for everyone else -- ranging from right to left -- they may well be "pefect[ly]" counterproductive. And none more so than "when he brushed his shoulders off after the debate." McCain is being criticized in some quarters – by Ed Rollins, a staunch Republican adviser, for example - for risking a backlash by seeming to find it beneath his dignity to have to campaign against Obama. Why would one imagine that Obama would gain support -- as opposed to giving pleasure to those who already find pleasure in expressions of this aspect of his style -- by acting in the same manner toward McCain -- "I don't have time for McCain's childish attacks, this country has bigger problems".

I'm doubtful that such a response would ever be useful in winning new support, but it seems particularly counterproductive when Obama is either not addressing the country's "bigger problems" in any seminal way, or he's signing on to increase them (a vote for FISA; lavish [desperate?] pledges of unquestioned and unconditioned fealty to whatever the Israelis want to do; Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel; moving the Iraq war to Afghanistan [with whose sons and daughters, to say nothing of with what consequences for the Afghanistanis' sons and daughters?]; pledges to do "everything" in his power ["everything . . . everything . . . everything"] to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon [a) Why? Israel can have 200 of them, India can have them, Pakistan can have them, Russia can have them . . . the US can have them; Iran can not, Why?; b) And whatever you think about a), we decide that it's necessary to do "everything . . . everything . . . everything" when, on what evidence? This is different from invading Iraq to keep Saddam from using his chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction how?]; willing to compromise on drilling for oil -- I will vote for him as long as the only other possible outcome is McCain, but not with any expectation of fundamental change from the country's current direction. It's almost enough to make me a Trotsky-ite (forgive me, Dad).

Posted at August 3, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Joe Klein: I Was "Wrong" To Call McCain An Honorable Man

Well said, roo_P.

Posted at August 2, 2008 8:45 PM in response to Why My Family Dislikes Obama

Well, having read Nancy Pelosi on George Bush, my response, to coin a phrase, is "same old, same old, same old, same old" (four same olds).It would be funny if it were not frightening. I find this fearfully of a piece with the end of the Roman Republic and the end of Weimar. And I am given no comfort by Obama (that he's better than Clinton is very far from good enough for what's needed). Where are the sober establishment men who have a lot to lose, an education to tell them how close they are to losing it, and the skill and energy to do something about it? Reading about the brilliance of the various campaign gurus is like reading about competing floral arrangements on the tables as the Titanic went down.

Posted at July 20, 2008 10:08 PM in response to TPMtv at Netroots Nation: Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Elizabeth2, it is not a long established defense to a tort claim to show that the President of the United States told you to commit the tort. That is precisely what "all the fuss is about". The issue of telecom immunity is far less about the financial cost to the telecoms of a judgment against them than it is about ending the unlawful action of the executive branch. For that reason there's not much, other than staving off a war against Iran, that's much more important.

Posted at June 30, 2008 8:44 AM in response to Hitting A Nerve

The problem with defending "a woman's right to choose" with either the phrase "a man telling you what you can do to your body" or the phrase "the government telling you what you can do to your body" is that, as Roe v. Wade very forcefully recognized, "a woman" is not making a choice simply about what to do "to her body". She is making a choice as well about what to do to "a potentiality of human life". Roe v. Wade recognized that "the state" has a legitimate interest in protecting that "potential", and held that the right of the state to intervene in what "a woman does to her body" increases as the "potential for human life" comes closer to birth. So, pace quasar, actually it "really" is "that hard to come to a conclusion about the issue" of abortion, unless one is willing to ignore "the potential for human life" that is ended by "a woman's choice" regarding "what to do to her body". And as to Obama and FISA, his defenders on this issue might want to read Glen Greenwood's detailed analyses before becoming too critical of positions such as chophouse's. And of course it's not just FISA -- it's also doing "everything" -- "everything" -- "everything" to keep Iran from obtaining a nucler weapon (on which compare Martin Van Creveld, "Israel’s leading military historian", who finds it both inevitable and not a problem that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons: like Israel, "'they are going to build nuclear weapons without admitting it,’ he said. ‘And I don’t see this made the world into a worse place. I am convinced the outcome is going to be a balance of power and I personally think that a nuclear Iran may not be such a bad thing for the world'" He may be right or he may be wrong, but he is at least not going to Washington to pledge his subservience to AIPAC. And then there's his criticism of Kennedy v. Louisiana (Held: the death penalty cannot be constitutionally imnposed for the crime of raping a child) (PS -- never mind that the strength of the record on actual guilt, and the conduct of the state in general in this case is, shall we say, deeply troubling). So it's not trolls, and it's not Republicans, who are very fearful of an Obama presidency -- and believe me, it's Obama's increasingly clear likeness to the Clintons, not my (non-existent) support of either Clinton, that drives my concern.

Posted at June 30, 2008 8:29 AM in response to Hitting A Nerve

Nicely done, CranialRectalLoopback.

Posted at June 26, 2008 10:42 PM in response to Quote of the Day: Vice President Is a "Barnacle" on the Legislative Branch

Second Dave Bowman's motion.

And my answer to Jonathan Taplin's question is Bill Kristol.

Posted at June 24, 2008 7:58 AM in response to Neocons Unhinged

I frankly have no idea whether "The Media [was] Unfair To Hillary". If "The media [was] unfair to Hillary" I have no idea whether "the Media" were motivated by "sexism" or something else. What I do know is that I have a very long list of indictments against both Clintons, and they are totally gender neutral.

Posted at June 16, 2008 10:04 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

If Clinton's campaign owes money to Penn, and Penn forgives the debt, the forgiveness could be characterized as a contribution from Penn to the campaign. If the campaign refuses to pay, claiming that the money is not owed because the work for which the debt was incurred was not performed, and Penn does not obtain a legal judgment to the contrary, I think that not paying for work not done could not be characterized as a contribution from Penn to the campaign. If the campaign campaign refuses to pay, claiming that the money is not owed because the work for which the debt was incurred was not performed; Penn DOES obtain a legal judgment to the contrary; the campaign still refuses to pay; and Penn does not act to collect the judgment, I suspect that that too could be characterized as a campaign contribution to Clinton.

Posted at June 12, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Mark Penn: I Wanted To Attack Obama More Aggressively, But Others On Campaign Held Me Back

All criticism of Hillary Clinton (or Gloria Steinem) is motivated by sexism. All criticism of Obama or Jeremiah Wright is motivated by racism. All criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism, as is all criticism of Mr. Hagee. All criticism of actions taken by the Bush/Cheney administration is motivated by sympathy for suicide bombers. All criticism of Bill Clinton is motivated by sympathy for the vast right wing conspiracy. One could go on . . .

Posted at June 9, 2008 3:39 PM in response to Gloria Steinem is Unintentionally Funny