I like watching Olberman from time to time. But this special comment was just cheesy as hell, and purely for ratings purposes. It was cool when he eviscerated Rummy for mismanaging a war, resulting in lots of death. This time, it was going after someone for a gaffe, making it just bluster. As an ardent Obama supporter, I say thanks but no thanks to Olberman for this special comment. It's made the left look silly. Save it for situations that warrant actual outrage....

Posted at May 24, 2008 12:26 PM in response to Olberman Hands Hillary Her Ass......

She's right though. And the Secret Service is awesome. 75k in PDX. I only saw them checking bags at the entry, but obviously they had shit handled thoroughly. Call me cynical, but he owes them big time...

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:38 PM in response to HILLARY RAISES ASSASSINATION ISSUE

Haha - you are correct in that this drawn out process is making me batshit crazy. I can't wait for this thing to end.

But as for your point about Feinstein's Bush-like policies, that's exactly my point. I think Feinstein has taken those positions for principled reasons. And I completely disagree with her on those points. But she never became caustic. If she and Obama had to sit down and reason out their arguments with each other, then I think it would create something better. More importantly, the people would have more faith in their conclusions.

The age issue is something else. I doubt she would even take the offer because of it. But I was using her as a model of the type of politician I imagine being the best pick for him.

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:30 PM in response to Obama and Clinton: Not Rivals

I did, which is why I posted this. Lincoln chose his rivals on policy grounds. And that's what I am arguing Obama do. Policy fights produce better policy. Political fights produce no policy. Clinton is a "fighter", but only in the sense that she doesn't give up the fight for her own political success. Her 1993 health care effort was another perfect example of this. She kept other Democrats out of the process so that she could "own" the fight. She didn't want anyone to steal her political limelight. What did it produce? No policy.

Posted at May 23, 2008 3:44 PM in response to Obama and Clinton: Not Rivals

Clintonism boils down to reflecting public opinion. By contrast, Obama wants to shape public opinion. Some of us consider that leadership.

Well Fucking Said.

And as leaders of the left, if you constantly triangulate, you end up moving the definition if "left" ever more to the right.

Posted at May 21, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Clintonism in a Nutshell

Agreed - I think TX supports the argument against caucuses being as representative of the will of the people as primaries. But, my main point is for people to stop using WA in their argument, because it was completely meaningless.

Another point: the people who've followed this primary process more closely (activist base) have tended to be Obama supporters. And I believe that because of this, people not showing up when the vote didn't count, would mostly be people informed enough to know the vote would be meaningless, and therefore be disproportionately for Obama.

More succinctly, Obama's voters stayed home in FL and MI more than Hillary's supporters. This is open for debate, since there are no numbers behind my argument. But I'd like to hear an argument challenging this idea. And another one then validating the MI and FL results.

Posted at May 21, 2008 5:52 PM in response to ATTN: WA primary was MEANINGLESS

I agree with your stance that WA is not comparable with FL and MI. But I would point out that in MI and FL, the Dem turnout was less than the Republican turnout, which was unusual for this primary, except in the reddest states. Granted, it was still early in the process, and before McCain clinched, but I doubt FL and MI have fewer registered Dems. To me, this suggests depressed Dem turnout.

Posted at May 21, 2008 5:18 PM in response to ATTN: WA primary was MEANINGLESS

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I live in WA, and I can tell you that NOBODY gave a shit about the primary. EVERYONE knew that the WA state Dem party used the CAUCUS ONLY to allocate its delegates. The primary numbers are MEANINGLESS, because people knew it would COUNT FOR NOTHING (just like FL and MI). If you think that knowing that your vote won't count doesn't influence voting behavior, you are simply an idiot.

However, if you want to raise a credible argument about the merit of caucuses, then TX would be a decent example. Using WA to prove your point is MORONIC.

Posted at May 21, 2008 3:24 PM in response to If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?

Yeah - a real misogynist. I guess he keeps Samantha Power around to grab her sweet Irish ass whenever he feels randy.

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:10 PM in response to Sweetie?

It's easy to be a gracious winner, and very hard to be a gracious loser. I wish I could say I would've reacted the same way had the tables been turned. It must've been very hard. Kudos.

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