It's always nice to find a virgin rickrollee - reminds me of my first time... ;-)

Posted at June 9, 2008 10:10 PM in response to "Get Whitey" quote from Michelle found!

I echo this sentiment completely, and am glad to add my voice to yours rather than post a separate thread.

Although I still think Hillary would have made a better candidate, the choice is now between Obama and McCain, and that is a choice I think we can almost all agree on.

Congrats to Obama supporters on a race well fought. Here's to hoping we don't screw this up [again] before November!

Posted at May 7, 2008 11:13 AM in response to I'm Done

Yeah, that's totally what I said... Keep up the clear thinking.

Posted at May 6, 2008 8:39 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"

I fully understand there are different ways to view all these issues, things are never black/white, yet we somehow expect different things from our politicians when faced only with a yes/no vote.

Three more points on this argument you may find interesting though:
1) Mainstream scientific opinion in 2005 was clear, in that for the most part we knew there wasn't any future in fuel from primary agriculture (corn is not even a good source of ethanol as far as food goes). It was hailed as a solution by politicians refusing to investigate the issue properly. Many scientists gave dissenting opinions when asked, yo ucan't give Obama a pass on this one.

2)"the effect of ethanol on food prices is grossly exagerated. oil has far more of an effect."
I think you're quite misguided here. The biggest effect on oil price in the US has been the weak dollar, and this does knock on, but it's completely wrong to suggest that is the reason behind the huge increase in corn prices. The US normally has huge corn surpluses (due to farming subsidies), but because of ethanol demand has massively increased, and it's this demand that is raising prices.
The effect of bioethanol on food prices, and the environment, is currently seen most strongly in 3rd world countries. Food crops are being used to make fuel, when people are starving, and virgin jungles are being cut and burned to grow palm oil, and this fuel is shipped back to the US and Europe.

3) I don't really have a major beef with Obama. I don't think he'll be as effective a President as Hillary, and where their policies differ, I think Hillary's are generally better. Crucially, I see no evidence that he has better judgement at all when looked at overall - and those who think an anti-war speech is evidence are a bit crazy in my view. Having said that, I think he'd be phenomenally better than McCain, but also a weak candidate to run against him. If he is the nominee, I very much hope I'm wrong about that.

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:46 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"

I'd venture there are a few outstanding memos yet to be assimilated ;-)

Posted at May 6, 2008 2:09 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"

"It was going to pass anyways, due to REPUBS, so he could either vote against and ignore his constiuents, or vote for it and thus honor his IL roots."
So that's an acceptable argument now? Kinda takes the sting out of arguments against Hillary's Authorization vote.

As for voting for it for reasons of corn-based ethanol production, if true, that is a devastating indictment of Obama. We can thank his lack of foresight and pandering to local political influence for both increasing food prices around the world, as well as increasing our dependence on fossil fuel. It takes 1.2 gallons of fossil fuels to make an equivalent 1 gallon of corn-based fuel - you do the maths on that one.

Posted at May 6, 2008 2:05 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"

Uh huh, but Obama saying he'd bomb a sovereign ally - Pakistan - if Osama was found there isn't a lizard-brain 'kill them all' strategy?

The military might of the US only works as a disincentive to aggression between other countries, if those countries are aware of the consequences of said aggression. Ever seen Dr Strangelove?

By 'tact', of course you mean 'avoid answering the question properly'. In a debate against McCain, if a moderator asked this question of Obama, and pressed for specifics in what Obama would do, either he'd essentially give the same answer as Hillary, or he'd look weak weak weak against McCain. America is not going to elect another Jimmy Carter!

Posted at May 6, 2008 1:36 PM in response to Hillary Should Be Dismissed From The Democratic Party For Iran Comments

Colbert dishes it out fairly evenly between Obama and Hillary in my opinion. Stewart went on a mini anti-Hillary crusade for a few weeks, though seems to be getting back on track now.

Posted at May 6, 2008 1:15 PM in response to Chris Matthews, On Whether MSNBC Supports Obama: "Well, It's Not Official"

No, it's negative campaigning when either do it. When Hillary does it, however, Obama calls it 'old politics'.

Posted at May 6, 2008 1:10 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"

hehe - your comments are always good for a laugh, Carol.

Obama's trying to take the focus off the issue - high oil prices - and one of the solutions - holding WTO members of OPEC accountable. Naturally, he wants to bring attention back to his campaign's central message, which is that Hillary's an evil, conniving, untrustworthy, pandering bitch.

You're a lapping it up, naturally, but those of us more focussed on issues and *solutions*, may remember all th way back to 2005, when Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney "let's give oil companies a helping hand, but throw a few scraps to environmentalists" bill, whereas Hillary made a stand on energy issues.

Posted at May 6, 2008 12:13 PM in response to Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"