Until Obama found a new way to fund his candidacy, these fund raisers called the shots. He reduced their power. If they were high-minded citizens, interested in good government, they'd welcome another soldier to the battle. But they are not high minded, they are bristling at their loss of influence.

Posted at June 27, 2008 1:06 AM in response to Obama Making Private Calls Appealing To Hillary's Top Fundraisers -- And Sometimes Hearing Criticism In Return

The Republican party is raising money because it does what its constituents want it to do. The DNC is not raising money because it is betraying its constituents. Even when the Democrats only want the Congress to simply not act, Reid and Pelosi can't even manage that. So impeachement doesn't happen, but telecom immunity and war funding do. Reid folds at the slightest hint of a filibuster and extracts no political pain for the obstructionism. Why would I fund such a betrayal? Progressive candidates running to unseat Republicans get my attention and my money. DNC beg letters go strait to the recycle bin.

Posted at June 23, 2008 11:59 PM in response to RNC Retains $50 Million Cash Advantage Over DNC

In the primary, McCain took public financing and then backed out of it and spent in excess of the permitted amount without FEC approval. McCain can't be trusted For his offenses so far, McCain could be facing a 5 year prison term.

Posted at June 19, 2008 8:52 PM in response to Obama Camp: We Opted Out Of Public Financing Because McCain Won't Discuss Reining In 527s

This column is meaningless unless you compile the media slights Obama suffered, or point out that Dean, Gore, Kerry, and Edwards all were smeared in the media to the point of ending their runs for president.

Besides, Hillary lost 3 months ago, and admitted it 2 weeks ago, so isn't it time to talk about the general election?

Unless you've got a story about how she is campaigning her heart out for the Democratic nominee (which she is not), she is irrelevant.

Posted at June 16, 2008 9:44 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

Nonetheless, Arianna runs the only progressive blog I know that screens and supresses posts. What is she afraid of? Is it her mindset that public opinion is what she chooses to allow?

Posted at June 13, 2008 9:44 AM in response to The $3,000,000,000 Question

Even before reading your post, I had doubts about her. What progressive worth their salt would found a website with censorship of the comments as the normal way of doing business? At the Huffington Post they meet out several kinds of punnishment for comments they don't like. Some posts are delayed for hours until they are burried in the archives before they appear, others are deleted, and if they really don't like your ideas, they delete all your posts on that article. This is not censorship of trolls or swearwords, this is supression of ideas. Since I only have my memory of my posts to figure out what she has her employees supress, I haven't figured out what ideas are taboo. One sure way to get your post deleted is to mention the fact of their censorship. Censorship of discussion of their censorship is both self-serving and effective in keeping commenters from catching on. Another way they get away with it is that the Huffington Post software always makes your posts appear on your screen, its only when you go back to the page to see if others responded to your post that you find some or all of your posts have been deleted.

I would not find Arianna's policy surprising if the Huffington Post originated in Red China, but on a Progressive blog that people trust, I find it a shocking betrayal.

Posted at June 13, 2008 12:24 AM in response to The $3,000,000,000 Question

The Huffington post censors its blogs with a heavy hand as a matter of course, often delaying comments for hours while the censors determine what does or does not meet some standard which is far more strict than the published policy. What is the Huffrington Post's agenda? What ideas are being supressed? Is that really appropriate for a Progressive American Website?

Posted at June 12, 2008 11:38 PM in response to The $3,000,000,000 Question

So if you reply the check box for reply doesn't get automatically checked. That is not intuitively obvious.

Posted at June 7, 2008 10:17 AM in response to The Final Event Of Hillary's 502-Day Presidential Campaign

I wonder how many others were threatened. That's the sort of thing that would explain why, when Obama's win was clear 3 months ago, somehow the superdelegates couldn't get their shit together end this.

Posted at June 7, 2008 10:15 AM in response to The Final Event Of Hillary's 502-Day Presidential Campaign

It only took Obama about 400 days to defeat Clinton. The last 100 days was just to get the dishonest press to finally stop milking the story and report it as a win.

Posted at June 7, 2008 9:38 AM in response to The Final Event Of Hillary's 502-Day Presidential Campaign