"missy"?

Posted at June 25, 2008 12:01 AM in response to Obamaniac Overconfidence

That's nice, how you prove his point about people desperate to be offended, to feed their sense of victimhood. A useful reminder to all of us that there is a limit to Obama's habit of speaking to Americans as if they were thoughtful adults.

On LG's broader point, I agree. I am hearing way too much overconfidence, expressed in all kinds of ways. The circular firing squad is, as NCSteve pointed out, pretty typical for Dems. I worry less about that than I do about things like Obama's "presidential" seal; the slowdown in fundraising; media management (we ignore the Gasbags at our peril). It is dangerous for either the campaign or the party or progressives to get complacent.

On a side note: I am pissed about Obama's cave-in on FISA. There are a lot of reasons he was my second-to-last choice in the Dem primary. But since I don't expect politicians, or anyone else, to be perfect, I don't see this election as voting for the "lesser of two evils" (I hate that phrase and the political thinking it represents). President Obama will do things I don't like, as did Bill Clinton, as would have Presidents Gore and Kerry and Dean. There's a reason we have different branches of government and limited mandates.

Posted at June 24, 2008 3:40 PM in response to Obamaniac Overconfidence

You KNOW Hagel wants to be a dem already.

I don't know. On foreign policy, I trust him more than I trust a lot of Democrats, but on domestic stuff, from choice to the environment to the economy, I think he's pretty far right. I do know his brother, who he served with in Vietnam and who is, I believe, his best friend, is a Democrat. Stranger things have happened.

Posted at June 18, 2008 3:46 PM in response to Yes or No: Will Lieberman pull a Zell Miller?

Seriously? Part of the reason for the credit crunch is the increase in gov't borrowing and debt. The weak dollar is due, in part, to deficit spending. The war, which is off budget, is increasing deficit spending, in addition to the on-budget Bush tax cuts. The weak dollar and the war are inflating oil prices, and it's all a vicious downward spiral for U.S. economy. The war isn't the only factor, but it's a big one.

That's my layman's understanding. What am I missing?

Posted at June 17, 2008 2:54 PM in response to Gore Endorsement Of Obama Grabs Big Headlines In Michigan

I actually am happier to see Granholm on that stage than Gore. You knew Gore was going to do the right thing. Granholm did her best to drag out the "HIllary Won Michigan" crap.

Here's hoping she can deliver.

Posted at June 17, 2008 10:25 AM in response to Gore Endorsement Of Obama Grabs Big Headlines In Michigan

I don't have a Pew/Harvard study, I have my own observation that the MSM followed the narrative as set by the Clinton campaign: Indiana counted, North Carolina didn't. Kentucky was the bell-weatheriest state evah; Oregon didn't matter. West Virginia was the true measure of a Democrat's popularity, etc.

Obama did consistently better, from Ohio to PA to IN, in all of those groups he's supposedly so weak with (white working class, older white woman, HS diplomas, etc), you'd never know that from the campaign reporting.

Finally, for overall media coverage: Yes, Chris Matthews is a sexist pig, a psychological trainwreck on display for the whole world. Yes, Keith Olbermann got a litte hysterical in his dislike of her (for her statements and strategy, not her genitalia). Yes, the Washington Post did run an incredibly stupid article about her cleavage. About nine months ago. One article. Written by a woman. Yes, a random (and female) McCain supporter and one notoriously crass and obnoxious GOP operative called her a bitch. Neither is evidence of widespread media sexism.

As for TPM, I noticed the other day the headline about Obama's lead narrowing. According to Gallup which, for whatever reason, and again according to my recollection, always undercounted Obama's support, no mention of Rasmussen which showed his lead holding.

Posted at June 17, 2008 12:13 AM in response to Are you as fed up with TPM as I?

There's a quote in one of the stories from a Clinton staffer who also worked in Bill's White House and remains close to the Clintons. I don't guess that means it has to be Penn, but he meets the description, and that anonymous staffer made some snide comment about Obama hiring the person most responsible for him being the nominee. Projection and sour grapes.

This strikes me as a huge tempest in a teapot. There are a lot of Clintonites, staffers and supporters, who will cling to anything to fuel their anger.

As for her being hired as COS to a not-yet-picked Veep candidate, I understand Gore did the same thing. It's a way of maintaining a single-headed campaign, so that the Veep doesn't bring in their own people, with different ambitions, agendas.

Posted at June 16, 2008 11:38 PM in response to News for haters of Hillary's campaign methods

You might wanna read some of this nitwit's other posts before bothering to engage it.

Posted at June 9, 2008 7:40 PM in response to Florida Dem Declines To Endorse Obama

Once again, Florida.... These are the people we were supposed to allow to decide the nomination? He wants the chance to "lobby with McCain"? Does the little nitwit think a hypothetical President McCain is going to remember this and be his BFF?

Posted at June 9, 2008 5:30 PM in response to Florida Dem Declines To Endorse Obama

If Obama chooses Clinton, it will be because he was, effectively, blackmailed into it. It's a step down for her in prestige and power, the only conceivable reason for her to do so at this point is to show the world that she could make Obama do it. I don't know if anyone in the party has the clout the Narcissistically Entitled Ones to make them announce she has no interest in the Vice Presidency and that they will both do everything they can to elect President Obama, but it would be nice to see some actual leadership on this from our party's alleged leaders.

Posted at June 4, 2008 5:14 PM in response to If Obama Picks Hillary