Paul Gilmartin

Details

  • : Broken Arrow, OK
  • : 38
  • : Humanist
  • : None
  • : http://www.myspace.com/paulcgil
  • : Born in Dublin, Ireland in 1969. Emigrated to U.K. in 1989 and to USA in 1993. Married with 1 daugther. Massive fan of Arsenal F.C. Enjoy following the political scene but disappointed with current leadership (who isn't?)
  • : Fever Pitch by Nick Hornby All in the mind by Ludovic Kennedy Collected poems of PJ Kavanagh by Patrick Kavanagh Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

Latest Comments

  • Hey, monkey, next time you're in Tulsa, let me know. I'm a lover, not a fighter, but I'll make an exception for you, you dim-witted gobshite.

    Posted at May 16, 2008 12:23 PM in response to Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks Today

  • Cheers Lawton! We'll win some silverware soon!
    Didn't know that O is a hammers fan, well at least it's not spurs ;)

    Posted at May 16, 2008 12:19 PM in response to Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks Today

  • I completely disagree. The opposite argument is equally valid, O stays silent therefore he is an appeaser. Hitting it head on is the only way to counter such falsehoods. John Kerry assumed that people wouldn't believe the smears because they were untrue, bad strategy!

    Posted at May 16, 2008 11:15 AM in response to Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks Today

  • Good point Voltaire. Ignoring the douche troll is probably the best strategy, but I do love reading nisleib's responses, brilliant.
    Oh, btw, looks like the monkey got an atlas for his birthday!

    Posted at May 16, 2008 11:09 AM in response to Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks Today

  • Good point Voltaire. Ignoring the douche troll is probably the best strategy, but I do love reading nisleib's responses, brilliant.
    Oh, btw, looks like the monkey got an atlas for his birthday!

    Posted at May 16, 2008 11:08 AM in response to Obama To Respond Forcefully To Bush's Attacks Today

  • Very good point frogleg. Of course, with all of the supers coming out for O right now, one more isn't a huge deal but it IS Edwards. That in itself makes it big.

    BTW, fogu2 and RaeK, suck my cheney!

    Posted at May 14, 2008 10:29 PM in response to After West Virginia Loss, Obama Keeps Racking Up Super-Delegates

  • In the article that Carol referred to, Dana Milbank said "After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier."

    Was he talking about Tuzla?

    Posted at May 14, 2008 6:22 PM in response to NARAL Endorses Obama -- Hillary Spokesperson Is "Surprised"

  • "The voters have stolen my nomination"

    What a line!!! One of many pearls in this video. Brilliant. And it's so funny because many elements are true (not all of course!).

    Posted at May 13, 2008 12:59 PM in response to Obama Gets Four More Super-Delegates

  • "The voters have stolen my nomination"

    What a line!

    As Larry the Cable guy says "that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are."

    Posted at May 10, 2008 1:49 PM in response to Clinton's Real Electability Powerpoint

  • you're dead right peter, Penn did think it was winner take all. amk referenced a Time article above, the following is taken from it:

    As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it.

    Posted at May 8, 2008 4:22 PM in response to A Mark Penn Memo From 2007 About Those Big States

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address