And now he has updated that post--glad to see that . . .

Posted at April 30, 2008 4:48 PM in response to Robo Call Gives False Voting Info to North Carolina Voters

And one of the other board members is an Obama supporter, as further digging has shown. Your point? Josh has so far NO facts to back up any accusation that Clinton knew or approved this. Implying that she did, as he has done (just who else would "by hook or by crook" refer to???), is what Lieberman did in the Connecticut race regarding Lamont's allegedly responsibility for the crash of Lieberman's website on election day. It's, at *very* best, shoddy journalism, and at worst just this side of libel, since there's a possibility this may turn out to be a criminal offense. IMHO, he's having a great deal of trouble distinguishing between his role as reporter and his role as editor--most newspapers have two separate staffs to do that. Maybe he should make it clearer he's editorializing, and not reporting.

Posted at April 30, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Robo Call Gives False Voting Info to North Carolina Voters

Josh's Joe-Lieberman-like smear against Clinton--without, as far as I can tell, ANY evidence to back it up--on the front page today is really a new low. So much for intellectual honesty . . .

Posted at April 30, 2008 1:12 PM in response to Robo Call Gives False Voting Info to North Carolina Voters

Answer: Because lots of people hate the Clintons irrationally. They seem to have conflated the Republicans who hounded the Clintons for so long with the Clintons themselves. And the haters' paranoia knows no bounds, apparently. "There just has to be something evil in those returns: I just know it." *eyes roll*

I can certainly understand why they (the Clintons) get pissed off sometimes.

Posted at April 4, 2008 8:24 PM in response to Clintons Release 2000-2006 Returns: Earned $110 Million, Paid $33 Million In Taxes

I'll call anyone who makes a racist comment a racist. And the fact that YOU cannot see reasons other than racism for why someone might vote for Sen. Clinton is YOUR lack of intelligence or imagination, NOT anyone else's--Sen. Obama is NOT God, or Christ, or invincible, and there are quite a few reasons for people to vote for her as opposed to him, despite the screeching and whining among his acolytes.

The racism and blinkeredness of Sen. Obama's supporters is one of the biggest open secrets of this race, and it's also one of the main reasons I am deeply concerned that Sen. McCain is going to be the president next January.

But, of course, if one supports Sen. Clinton, one is per se a racist . . . *eyes roll some more*

Posted at April 3, 2008 5:05 PM in response to Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken

"Why would southern Illinois vote for Clinton?" The assumption that any white person who votes for Clinton MUST be a racist is as racist as the assumptin that any black person who votes for Obama MUST be (reverse-)racist. Clearly, no one is voting on what they perceive to be the comparative merits of the candidates, merely on the color of their skin. *eyes roll*

Posted at April 3, 2008 2:58 PM in response to Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken

What I find fascinating about this article is the assumption that white voters voting on racist lines are bad a thing (a sentiment with which I agree), while black voters voting along racist lines can't be criticized (a sentiment with which I don't). It presumes that all or most whites voting for Clinton merely because she's white are throwbacks to the era of segregation, but that blacks voting for Obama merely because he's black are doing the country a service. Huh?!?!?! This assumption is insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, and frankly strikes me as extraordinarily patronizing both to whites (who implicitly must be racists) and blacks (who implicitly must be too stupid to be able to vote on the issues so are therefore using race as a proxy). As Sen. Obama showed in his speech responding to the criticism of Rev. Wright, race and racism are rather more complex topics than that. Too bad Mr. Sirota chooses not to examine that complexity further . . .

Posted at April 3, 2008 1:03 PM in response to Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken

Wow. Not one intelligent response to a letter that is factually accurate about the role of superdelegates, and about Pelosi's own self-contradiction (she is my representative, BTW, and I like her, but I, too, didn't like this attempt of hers to bind the superdelegates). The superdelegates were created NOT to be bound by the same rules that bind the pledged delegates--yet NO ONE here is suggesting that maybe the problem is with the system, not with Sen. Clinton.

It really is too bad that it sometimes seems that all Sen. Obama's supporters have is vitriol.

Posted at March 26, 2008 3:34 PM in response to In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates

I'm with you, Mary Anne--as far as I've seen, the VAST majority of the vitriol in this campaign (this site is certainly a good example) comes from Sen. Obama's supporters, and I've said on multiple occasions that if I were voting based merely on one candidate's supporters over the other, it would be a cold day in hell before I voted for Sen. Obama. However, I'm more concerned with a Dem winning in Nov., so I will vote for whomever is the nominee.

A lot of the hatred for the Clintons appears to me to be one of two things: (1) people who've been fooled by the Republicans for the past 16 years, and (2) misogyny. Many of Sen. Obama's supporters remind me of Stokely Carmichael saying that women's proper place in the civil rights movement was prone.

I will also never vote for McCain, but you can see by the polling that came out today that a lot of Dems and independents don't feel the same way I do. I continue to fear that if Sen. Obama is nominated, Sen. McCain will win.

Posted at March 26, 2008 1:38 PM in response to Hillary: Obama Campaign Wants To "Shut This Race Down"

My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader. And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules. --Josh, from his response to Sen. Bayh. (HTML is not my forte--I hope the tags work.) My response to this comment: what is a "clear" pledged delegate leader? 100 delegates? 50? 25? And if one is arguing, as Josh is in this comment, that complaining about the rules is silly, WHY is he downplaying *this* particular rule, the one that is the ONLY real purpose to the superdelegates: they DON'T have to vote the way the rest of the delegates do. Why is he arguing that there's some additional "requirement" that says they have to vote the way the pledged delegates vote? ESPECIALLY given his prior point that proportional voting is not all it's cracked up to be (remember Weimar?). (PS: I intend to vote for whomever the Dem candidate is, but I find attempts to bind the superdelegates, usually by supporters of Sen. Obama, as "silly" as any other attempts at spin.)

Posted at March 24, 2008 12:12 PM in response to Hillary-Backer Evan Bayh: Super-Delegates Should Back Hillary Because Of Electoral College