Must be a slow news day.

Are we supposed to be expecting this group to get shutdown by Obama's campaign? THAT would be newsworthy (and sad).

Posted at July 1, 2008 12:10 PM in response to Anti-FISA-Cave Group On Obama's Web Site Keeps On Growing

Most of you guys REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

Like, REALLY know.

I still trust Obama because he's proven himself to be extremely intelligent, capable and inspirational. He's shown that his policy stances reflect what the MAJORITY of Americans want: peace, prosperity and justice (a real relative term).

It's about what AMERICA needs, not about what the netroots wants, not about what gays want, not about what blacks or any other single group.

In this vein, even though I personally disagree with civil immunity for telecom companies, I still trust Obama to do the right thing.

I really don't know what I'm talking about, politically, which is why I don't run for president.

Posted at June 27, 2008 1:09 PM in response to Obama: Transformation or Triangulation?

If anything, he's bringing much-needed media attention to the issue. People see him helping, even "symbolically" (which is a little BSish -- a symbolic gesture would be one sandbag, I believe he filled at least a few more), and may become more motivated to help, seeing him lead by example.

Even if you disagree with that, you cannot disagree that it has given the relief workers there a morale boost to see the likely future president actually there DOING something instead of sending in a quick formulaic response to the media.

Posted at June 16, 2008 3:31 AM in response to Obama Helps Midwestern Flood Victims

Let's not forget that openly (or even privately) expressing your disagreement with the Nazi Party was a sure-fire way to vanish off the face of the earth.

I'd hesitate to compare the US to Nazi Germany at any point in history. Let's just say the US began going down that path after 9/11. It's up to us now to stop it from continuing onward.

Posted at May 31, 2008 9:05 AM in response to Poll: McCain's Advantage Over Obama On Iraq Evaporating

Actually, a little more than 1/3rd (ca. 32%) of the electorate chose Bush in 2004.

Posted at May 29, 2008 7:01 AM in response to McCain Attacks Obama For Refusing To Go On "Baghdad Stroll"

Not to be confused with Orwell's principle, which takes it one step farther and accepts those two ideas.

I think a lot of this argument is irrelevant simply because the rules are the rules. They were agreed to by all participants beforehand, and should, nay, MUST, be held to. I agree the nominating and election systems are terrible excuses for a "democracy" such as ours, but what would be even less fair than delegates and electoral votes is changing the rules in the middle of the game. Hillary is right every time she says the rules are unfair, but she is wrong every time she suggests they should be changed mid-stream. It is simply a matter of principle: only DELEGATES count. Not the popular vote. As the guy above alluded to, caucuses exist because the popular vote is irrelevant in this current system.

Bottom line: Yes, the system is screwed up; yes, it needs changing; no, the rules should not be changed before the election is over.

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:17 AM in response to A Sane Discussion Of Hillary And The Popular Vote

Seriously, guys, back off a little bit, OK? Don't be so armchair intellectual about it. I know, I know, we all think we know what the media should be reporting on, but it's seriously getting to the point where not a single post goes up without someone saying "CLINTON/OBAMA SHILL STFU GTFO ZOMGWTFBBQ".

Take a breather, point out where you disagree, but leave name-calling and accusations out of it please! Be grateful that the poster even bothers to read your (likely overblown) criticism and be even more grateful that they care enough to even respond sometimes. TPM's a cut above, it'd be nice if its commentators would be as well.

Posted at May 26, 2008 12:53 PM in response to Newsweek: Obama's Appalachia Problem Is Real

NO. IT. DOESN'T.

Posted at May 26, 2008 10:31 AM in response to Poll: Hillary Beats McCain In Kentucky, Obama Loses Big

I believe he is referring to the fact that when the Obama campaign released their initial statement, it thereby granted Clinton's comment validity as controversial. If I understand it correctly, he wishes to imply that had Obama's campaign initially ignored it, it would not have been seen as so controversial.

I disagree with this assessment: I feel the implication here is far too serious to have fallen by the wayside due to lack of the opponent's response. Something like, say, Obama's "bitter" comments perhaps would have fit the bill as something that could have gone unnoticed had Clinton not made it into such a big deal.

I feel that while Clinton's comments are definitely excusable, her handling of the situation isn't by any means. Had she simply apologized for her poor choice of words (regardless of the fact that she had already used it before), I believe it would have blown over much sooner than it likely will. Her stubbornness and self-victimization are only fueling the fire.

Posted at May 25, 2008 4:18 PM in response to Hillary Hits Critics For Taking Her RFK Assassination Remarks "Out Of Context"

A paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown:

"With a record turnout expected in today's primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall."
-->Or who is the whitest of the two Democrats running.

"The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916."
-->Correlation does not imply causation.

"Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state--and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message."
-->But she has not predicted victory against Obama, because it would be largely based on the color of her skin.

"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."
-->Note the lack of any quantifier before "Democrats". So... at least 2 remain excited.

"In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices."
-->No mention of the fact that Obama's insurmountable lead means he can afford a loss here.

"He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia--Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State."
-->As stated many times, the real endorsing might comes from mayors and governors, not members of congress. Nobody likes Rockefeller, anyway.

"Despite being the so-called "presumptive nominee" and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls."
-->Gee, I wonder why?

"Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states."
-->No mention of the fact that two of those don't count, and one of those wins was less than 9 percent.

Posted at May 13, 2008 2:11 PM in response to Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss