So, you're calling a former ambassador to Iraq a nutcake? What's next? All scientists are nutcakes? All career government officials are nutcakes? Global warming is a hoax? Our economy is great? Shouldn't you be posting to Fox news, redstate.org or some other right-wing fact denier??? The author of this blog is trying to faithfully put Reverend Wright's words into context without absolving him of EVERYTHING that he has said. I think that's fair. You and the media are faithfully taking snippets and spinning them into racially devisive weapons to damage Obama. In doing so you are damaging the progressive movement and the democratic party. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you so bent on getting Clinton elected that you are blind to everything else? Honestly, do progressive ideals mean anything to you?

Posted at March 21, 2008 12:43 PM in response to 9/11 Sermon In CONTEXT

No, you aren't a paranoid crank but a lot of posters on this site have failed to address your concerns. Granted, there is some misogyny in the mainstream media (mirroring mainstream society) and a ton of it on the right-wing. There may even be some of it subconsciously among liberals and Democrats but I would offer that at its core, Progressive ideology does not espouse that kind of hate and division. In fact, I would say that there are many woman who support Clinton simply because she IS a woman. On the other hand, a man such as myself does not even view Hillary as a female candidate. I think she can handle herself as well as any man, just like the numerous female CEOs out there. However, she does have the "woman commander-in-chief" image to overcome which could hurt her heavily in the GE. How many American female combat arms generals do you know of? Answer: there are none.

As for evidence over the substance of what she has done "wrong" there is ample. She has voted for the bankruptcy bill on behalf of credit card companies and what would have been to the detriment of average Americans. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman act which gave Bush more political cover to invade Iran. She voted for CAFTA, which if NAFTA is any indication will continue to siphon off thousands of American jobs to the detriment of the environmental and labor rights overseas. And most recently, unlike Obama, she decided to not even show up to vote for or against granting telecom companies immunity for helping Bush violate the 4th amendment (Obama voted against it) even though she was in D.C. at the time. Still unapologetic over her vote for the war, she claims she didn't even read the NIE which other responsible senators did.

Yes, Obama has probably voted for some things that I don't agree with as well. But the wiretapping immunity amendment was a stark enough difference for me. One is against giving lawbreakers immunity and the other doesn't have the political courage to vote one way or the other.

As for experience, the point is moot. Both have served virtually similar terms in Congress. If we are going to pair Hillary's time as First Lady with the policies of Bill than I have another set of solid evidence for you.

Posted at February 20, 2008 5:31 PM in response to A Clinton Attack Plan?