Yes, Virginia, There are Hillary Bloggers (And Open Thread)

With most of the progressive blogosphere seemingly behind Barack Obama, Tom Watson lines up the list of those favoring Hillary.

To be a Clinton blogger in the progressive blogosphere is to be hated, shunned, passed without notice in the street. .... We're not welcome at all the best dKos parties - if we show up, we're cursed with the universal epithet of those who challenge the Obama hegemony: "troll," they call us. ... Oh, the pain. The pure pain.

Give the gift of traffic. Here's Tom's list of bloggers writing favorably about Hillary: [More...]

There's Taylor Marsh, of course - unapologetic, in your face, deeply annoying to those who decry "the Clintons." Why, her very name launches vast armadas of angry commenters, her very name has become almost synonymous with hard-fisted Clinton blogging. We like her out front, in other words.

And look, we've got James Wolcott - the intellectual equivalent, according to some recent Pew research, of a combined 14,392 DailyKos Obama diarists. (I must note: he'd probably disapprove of the label "Clinton blogger" but we have to stretch things on our roster at times and he did coin the memorable phrase: "so shun me, I voted for Hillary," which has pretty much become our rallying cry - the T-shirts are on order). Then there's Big Tent Democrat and Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft - absolutely fabulous analysts and media critics. We'll include Lance Mannion, who has never named his choice but makes the always curious decision to actually defend Hillary Clinton in multiple posts - yes, he's one of us. Blue Girl, of course, and in Ohio too - so very crucial.

Let's not forget the prolific Riverdaughter, a feminist of wide-ranging abilities who always seems to nail what's so important about the typical Clinton voter (hint: they work, and they work at hard jobs). Our circle is made richer by the addition of the indomitable Shakespeare's Sister, a former Edwards blogger and all-around blog-whoring (her term, don't shoot me!) maestro.

Who else? John Amato at Crooks and Liars - playing it fair these days makes you a Clinton blogger. Fred Wilson and Jeff Jarvis? Well, they voted for her and actually admitted it in public. Joe Gandelman? An always moderate voice who seems to lean her way (I could be wrong). Jon Swift? The rare righty who doesn't hate Hillary. And I'm thinking Jane Hamsher leans our way. And Jessica Valenti. Digby too. And hey, maybe Tina Brown?

I'll add:

And some of the diarists at MyDD. If you know of others, leave them in the comments.

Yes, you can treat this as an open thread.

Update: Comments now closed.

< Spitzer Adviser Says He May Not Resign | Pelosi Damages Democrats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    banned from the leper colony (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM EST

    Thanks for the list... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    I am addicted to my computer and I feel that I was forced out of my usual haunts so I'll check out all those blogs. They can have my traffic, for what it's worth.

    many of us (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    feel that way

    Haha (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    BTD is such a tepid Obama supporter that he made the pro-Hillary list.

    A tip: you don't have to be a Hillary partisan to call the Obama campaign out on BS.  You just have to be a fair broker.

    And I think BTD is harder on Obama in some respects because he believes Obama has more potential.  At this point we know what we're getting with Hillary, but Obama might be able to absorb a lesson or two.

    Quite funny. But is Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    reading BTD?  I don't think so.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    there was quite a famous exchange between Obama and BTD at Daily Kos back in the day, although I have no idea if Obama actually read it.  BTD takes a back seat to no one.

    He read me then (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    Not anymore. He does not read blogs.

    What'd he say to you? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    He berated me (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST
    for being too hard on Dems who voted for John Roberts.

    What a progressive! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST

    I remember that diary (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    Wow, did that start a firestorm.  

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    You mean he thought you were being to hard on dems that voted for this:

    What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

    "So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

    The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

    And who says he's not a Fighting Dem? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:40 PM EST
    And you still tepidly support him? (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    Did he mention he was going to vote against before he voted for?

    Geeze. I'm sorry I missed that (none / 0) (#128)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:23:37 PM EST

    I read something just a couple of days ago and, (none / 0) (#206)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    sorry, I can't remember where -but it said that Obama wanted to vote for Roberts but that someone in the Senate advised him not to because every time Roberts voted for something controversial with progressives  -this would come up and bite him and wouldn't be good for his long-range plans.

    I wish I could remember where I saw this. Maybe someone else knows.


    It was here, last August (none / 0) (#225)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    Yeah, but Obama doesn't do a lot of the things (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    he needs to do.

    Were you thinking of his sub-committee? (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    that see,s like wishful thinking to me (none / 0) (#178)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    what we are getting with Clinton is pretty darn good.  Why hope Obama is less lame than he appears?  I think you have to have soaked up a lot of the poison talk about Clinton to take a chance on Obama not being as bad as he might seem at the moment.

    I know that is not exactly what you said, but I do know that people have that attitude and it think it is dangerous.


    Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    posts some of the hateful emails she gets.  They are just disgusting.  Do you guys get those, too?  I've never thought to ask (though, one time I tried to email to apologize for crossing a line in a comment and the mail bounced back, so maybe I chose the wrong link?)

    not many (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:41:48 PM EST
    I don't know about Big Tent.

    It's very sad (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    Dem on dem violence.

    I am sorry that you have to put up with it, and very grateful that you work so hard to keep this place safe for all of us.


    Obama the divider (none / 0) (#88)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    If nothing else, Obama has certainly succeeded as a trojan horse. And he has helped distinguish the true progressives from the false prophets.

    As always (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST

    But who would ever send Jeralyn hate mail? Nicest person there is on the blogs. Impossible to dislike her.


    I (none / 0) (#83)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    Can think of a few prosecutors who might want to send Jeralyn hate mail ;-)  Excellent lawyer, excellent blogger.

    If he's not getting hate mail. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:46:02 PM EST
    let me know.  I'm always happy to step into the breach!

    Exactly. If he isn't, shouldn't (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    he be?

    i've had 2 (none / 0) (#124)
    by Redstar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    in my entire 2 years of blogging, and both have come in the last month or so since i started blogging about the primaries.  

    Unless BTD has changed his tepid endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    he is better classified as "playing it fair"- which may make him a Hillary blogger in the eyes of some.

    However, he has endorsed Obama (an endorsement that some Obama supporters may rue) and unless he has retracted that endorsement, I don't think he should be classified as a Hillary blogger. Nor would he be neutral.

    While I think that BTD (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    does try to play it fair the tenor of the VAST majority of his diaries is very critical of Obama and defensive of Hillary.  

    I support Obama (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    but I am not blind to the vicious unfairness of the Media and the blogs towards her.

    The sexism and misogyny I have seen has turned my stomach.


    I'd really love to hear why you still support him (none / 0) (#59)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    I think it's all a big charade by you.  You have no more grounds to support him.  The previous things you had stated have fallen apart.  He is left with only the negatives and none of the original benefits.

    You have a right to continue being ridiculous but at this point it does kind of bother me that you see all of these faults with Obama and you would pretend to pick him over Hillary Clinton.


    That is pretty insulting (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    It is no charade and I have explained my reasons many times now.

    The problem is that many of you think that to choose a candidate one must love, or even like, that candidate.

    I do not think that is so. If you asked me who I find most appealng personally, at this point, I would say Hillary is more personally appealing to me because I so detest what has been done to her.

    But I know that what I find personally appealing is not the calculus by which to decide who to support. I support Obama for purely electoral reasons. I think he has a better chance of winning in November. I do not think there is a dime's worth of difference between them on the issues.

    I think Obama's Media Darling status coupled with Hillary's Media Devil status means he has a better chance of winning and a better chance of accomplishing more as President.

    I believe Obama has a chance to learn what Bill Clinton learned in 93-94 - the Unity Schtick Post Partisan Third Way will get you no where in governance.  

    I believe he will learn to fight. At least Ihope he does.

    I have always admitted that Obama is a roll of the dice, but one I am willing to bet on.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#100)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    I just can't believe you.

    Well then (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    I need not respond to you any more.

    Let me get this straight: (none / 0) (#147)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    I just can't believe you.

    You are saying he's lying?  To what end?

    Absolutely ridiculous and very unfair.  You can't presume to know someone's mind.


    Not When the Base (none / 0) (#103)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    stays home in the general election. I think people are totally underestimating what might happen with a BO nomination. They all talk about the BO supporters staying home.

    I think it is entirely possible they have it totally upside down. What happens when women, seniors and working class Catholics stay home or vote for McCain. Have you thought of that?

    Latinos could split in half. They don't hate McCain. How do you think Obama is going to win FL and OH cuz I don't see it.


    Yes. I don't either. Latinos have shown very (none / 0) (#210)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    little inclination to vote for him and they like McCain because he stood up for them with the immigration bill.  There goes New Mexico and Florida at least. Then Ohio could also go Rethug. It has the last two times, if you don't count the cheating in 04. Obama's also going to lose a good many of the caucus contests that he's been winning because those states will go Republican no matter which Dem runs.  He'll lose Arkansas.  

    This isn't even taking into consideration the older women who are really pissed at the misogyny directed at Hillary. Even if they hadn't supported her before, they are riled up about this.  Many of those may not vote or, worse, vote for McCain.

    The whole thing is depressing.


    Today's exit polling is supporting this! (none / 0) (#223)
    by nashville on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM EST
    55% of identiified Obama supporters would be dissatisfied with Clinton; whereas 72% Clinton supporters would be dissatisfied with Obama. Wow!

    Well my, my (drenched in sarcasm)...  I guess all of us poor(I'm thankfully not), old(only 48), uneducated(Master's +)women are just getting SICK and TIRED of being told how "polarizing" Clinton is when Obama will be the uniter.  Supposedly, all of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama but not vice versa. NOT! I'm very, very worried the base will stay home and the young will not show up because he will no longer be the newest fad.

    Please pardon any statement's that are too stong.  I just made the mistake of trying to watch the telly...oops, I forgot how much they ALL hate CLinton.  Got my blood boinling!

    We're talking about blogs, but are there any obective media people?  Anywhere?


    About media darling status (none / 0) (#119)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    I definitely agree with one of the other commenters here who pointed out that it's better to be media teflon than media darling.  Clinton may still win this nomination despite the media while Obama struggles to put her away with the full force of the media behind him.

    I agree...it bothers me too (none / 0) (#148)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    Though I don't think it is a charade because I don't find BTD intellectually dishonest...Perhaps BTD just has an inchoate feeling...and the one thing that would flip him to Hillary decisively (and I believe he won't flip unless he has conclusively determined she will be better) hasn't happened yet. However, he plays fair...and reasonably, even if reasonable minds differ sometimes. But I do wonder if he leaves open the possibility that he could change his mind..or whether he has decided to just keep defending his original assessment.  My guess is that there is some imaginary line for him...and he'll cross it when and if he feels it. Obviously he subscribes to the reasonable man standard.

    wow (none / 0) (#159)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    when did this turn into the Tao of BTD?

    And you see that as a contradiction? (none / 0) (#52)
    by badger on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    What I've learned... (none / 0) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    I never want to have someone tepidly supporting if "tepid" means what BTD makes it mean.

    Lookit (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    there are two truisms here:

    (1) BTD calls out unfair attacks and media bias.

    (2) BTD supports Obama.

    Both are true independent of each other.  Why is it that the fact that he does (1) negates (2)?  I have never understood that argument.  He cannot be an Obama supporter if he says one positive thing about Clinton, or defends her in any way?

    Oh, and also:

    (3) I am prettier than him.

    Another truism.


    It's more about the sum. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by corn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    It's not that there's a flaw in the logic.  It's that the mass of criticism would seem to overpower the opinion that he's slightly more electable.  To pick a recent example, the mess he's making in the FL/MI situation, which BTD well harps on, would seem to be a pretty big knock on his electability (if not in public opinion, in campaign judgment).  If support were tepid to begin with, I would think this type of thing would tip the scale.  I'm not suggesting there's any deceit, but it seems odd to me too.

    i object (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    how could they omit eriposte?

    Or you? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    It's not clear to me you are an out-and-out Hillary booster, but your even-handedness is enough to make you one in today's unreality-based "shrillosphere" as you rightly call it.

    Did you coin that, by the way?


    thanks for that! (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    and i'm not a hillary supporter, nor am i an obama supporter, but like big tent, i have a sense of fairness and honesty. although, i have to admit that since the big orange officially jumped the shark, i've been thinking i might vote for hillary, just in the hope that it will expedite a necessary scouring of the tubes.

    as for shrillosphere- as far as i know, i did coin it! i'm quite proud of it!


    I'm right with you on the (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    shark-jumping at left freeperstan, orange division.  It's sad.  People have lost their heads.

    Keep up the good work.  


    just wondering... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    how does it benefit Kos, DK, and other pro-Obama sites to "reject" Hillary supporters?
    Seems illogical on sites specifically dedicated to electing Dems.

    Based on a comment Kos made (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    recently, the "candidate wars" have brought a surge in traffic to his site.  However, in the same comment he said the added bandwidth, and issue-based advertisers staying away because of the site's focus on candidates, are costing him money.

    I don't get the feeling the admins at DKos have made a decision to reject Hillary supporters.  However, it's clear to me that Obama's most virulent supporters (many with low UIDs) want to do that.  And, they've succeeded because Kos is rather laissez-faire.


    His front page post (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    about the blackening of Obama in the Clinton campaign video was a clear sign to HRC supporters to clear out, if you ask me.

    I'm only a 'tepid' Clinton supporter, but that post permanently turned me off Kos. I take him with a grain of salt now. I haven't decided yet whether I will frequent his site again or not, but I've been there a lot less since the congressional funding capitulation began last spring anyway.

    Like many I started out an Edwards supporter, never imaging I would prefer Clinton over Obama at this point. Obama is the one I REALLY wanted to like, but he failed to close the deal.


    That post and seeing Teacherken's (none / 0) (#228)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    diary at the top of the rec list were the last straws for me.

    I didn't take Kos' post on the "blackening" allegations as a signal to "clear out"; I thought it was wrongheaded and very disappointing.  That issue lowered both Kos and Aravosis in my eyes.  I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt after that.


    The standard answer to complaints (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:06 PM EST
    on DKos about the alienation of Clinton supporters was simply "it doesn't matter, Clinton is not getting the nomination."

    Needless to say, I thought that was rather short-sighted. But when I pointed out that Obama was going to need the support of Clinton's supporters just as much as Clinton would need the support of Obama supporters, the standard answer was "it doesn't matter, Obama will pull in new voters/Independents/moderate Republicans."

    A very constructive attitude for the GE, don't you think?


    It's received CW in the tradiitonal media (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    and, sadly, in the left blogosphere that all of this turnout is due to Obama.

    It's just not true.  It's because of Hillary and Obama.


    Okaaaay. And where are the "old voters" (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    going to go then?  There seems to be a lack of logic there.

    That's old Europe. We're doing well in new Europe (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    The idea that (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    dkos exists to 'elect Dems' has been abandoned. The site's mission now is to elect Obama.

    Remember the attacks Cindy Sheehan had to endure there when she announced plans to run as a third-party candidate against Pelosi? She wasn't exactly asked to leave, iirc, but she was told by the powers that be that she couldn't promote her candidacy anymore. Meanwhile diaries proclaiming that the diarist will vote third party or GOP if Hillary gets the nomination regularly appear on the wreck list with nary a peep from the admins (e.g. teacherken).

    It's about Obama now, not the Democratic Party.


    Sheehan, if I'm not mistaken (none / 0) (#230)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:45:48 PM EST
    was asked to leave because of her advocacy for a third-party candidate against a Democrat.

    And she posted a truly, IMHO, nutty diary arguing, among other things, that the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that the Democratic Party is responsible for most of the wars in the last century.  She jumped that shark on her own steam.

    I agree with you, however, that Daily Kos is now geared toward electing Obama, to the detriment of its long-stated goal of electing more and better Democrats.


    I'm disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    to find out that my phrase "gone to the shrill" wasn't unique.

    Congratulations on "shrillosphere"!


    It is very sad, the Orange (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    It saved my sanity after the 2004 election debacle. It was a great resource for finding out information about the various brewing Bush outrages before the MSM would cover them.

    And even in the early stages of the campaign -- pre-primaries -- it was not out-of-control vitriolic.  And then it was.

    In despair, at one point I sent a e-mail to kos asking him to do something. His response, en toto, was: "What would you have me do? It'll get better after the primaries."

    If I were kos, I wouldn't be so sure that it will get better after the primaries, or that disaffected kossacks will return. And that will be sad.


    I still go there occasionally. (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    But, for me, the issue is credibility -- of Kos, several of the front pagers, and many, many Kossack diarists who I used to respect highly.

    I can go back.  But I will never wholeheartedly trust many people there again.  It's easy to overlook or not recognize dishonest argument when it's aimed at Republicans.  But now that the shoe has been on the other foot, I find many people there to be less credible.  I doubt I'm alone in this view, and it can only hurt Daily Kos the blogosphere in general, in the future.


    The disaffected will never return (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    The intellectual dishonesty of DailyKos has permanently been noted.  No one with any sense of logic or fairness will ever want to be associated with Kos...He represents everything that thinking progressives are not...dishonest to the core. He has marginalized himself and his blog...Only the number of hits will end up telling the story...in the same way that Keith Olbermann will be judged..and all the other dishonest hacks. Kos is a hack now, nothing more.

    to me (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    the obama "blacker" posts were irredeemable. i had hoped he would end up retracting the first one, but he just kept digging in deeper, setting a standard that the rest of his minions have been following. to me, that was when he lost all credibility.

    he doesn't care. he does brag about his huge traffic, even if it's not helping with ads, for now. but many good people won't be back, and the new arrivals will all take for granted that this is how his site is supposed to be.

    i scanned one of his posts, earlier today, and he was framing a potential clinton win via superdelegates as a "coup." he was also arguing for popular vote totals that were most beneficial to obama, and least to clinton. he has some wonderful front pagers, but their quality can no longer make up for the stink of the rest of the place.


    Yes, definitely an omission (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    And a great site all around.  Here's the link.

    I just added Eriposte and several more (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    to the main post.

    Eriposte should be up there with Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#155)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    Both are passionate. And great examples of courageous fighters.

    The Left Coaster (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    One of my new favorite sites.  Some Hillary supporters, others just even-handed.

    Even-handed is good enough in my book. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Paladin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    Even-handed is all I ask too. I was an Edwards supporter, and was torn between Hillary and Obama once he dropped out.  But I chose Hillary for a number of reasons.

    All I ask is that people have mature, open discussions on the issues which are virtually impossible on the other sites.  I would actually prefer to have debates with other views, rather than find echo-chamber sites.

    But unfortunately, the hatred is too much to take.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    Civilized, respectful debate is something Democrats ought to be good at, but this year, not so much. This site is refreshingly different.

    could I just say (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    something I was trying to say in another thread.
    as far as I am concerned there are lies that matter and lies that dont matter.
    I understand politics and political campaigns are not beanbag.  punches get thrown.
    I dont think the "as far as I know" distortions means much. its a lie but a small one without real policy ramifications.
    on the other hand his demagoging about how "everyone will have to buy health insurance even if they cant afford it" is far worse than anything Hillary or any of her supporters have said or done.  and as far as that goes worse than anything else Obams has done.
    it is a bald faced lie and it has policy consequences for every man woman and child in this country.  using a lie to win and in the process preventing people from getting the health care they so desperately need is just short of evil IMHO.

    I so agree. The Harry and Louise ads and (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    Obama's willingness to allow surrogates to call the Clintons racists represented the point for me when I began to really dislike Obama.   I felt that he was willing to do anything to get himself elected, including putting universal health care in danger and using race as a weapon.  These things hurt not only the party, but everyone in the country.   This is the work of a demagogue, no matter how pleasant and reasonable he sounds as he pretends to stand above it all.

    Anyone who can rouse supporters to a frenzy of hatred is a person to be feared.  If he's such a uniter, why is the Democratic Party in such straits?   Compare him to Howard Dean, who, after the horrible ads by Kerry et al and the Scream attacks by the MSM, calmly turned around and told his supporters to support the party and the goals we all had of taking back the country for progressive ideals.    There is no comparison. Dean was a hero I would fight for.  Obama is a narcissist who has no real vision for the country, other than his ego.


    OK I'll bite (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    Why won't everyone have to buy health insurance under Hillary's plan?  Does her plan specifically mandate that we everyone buy health insurance?

    bites welcome (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    the lie is that people will have to buy it "who cant afford it"
    they will be able to afford it.  Hillarys play has plenty of money for that.
    THAT is the lie.  

    and (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    I am sad and embarrassed that it seems like Obama may maintain our status as the only first world country that is unable to insure every citizen.

    The further issue ... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:29 PM EST
    is the structural economic changes which would result from universal health care that would not result from affordable health care.

    It would have massive impacts on debt and wealth structure in this country.

    Affordable health care will never do this, because it just puts a band-aid on the problem, it doesn't cure it.


    How do you figure (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    How exactly do you make people who can't afford it now, afford it later by requiring them to pay for it?  

    subsidies (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    that was an easy one...

    ok (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    But presumably the reason for the mandate is to require EVERYONE to have health insurance, correct?  So we wither require the individual to pay for it or we expand entitlements to poor unemployed 20 somethings with no job.  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    expanding the "entitlement" is an essential part of the plan.  Everyone is going to have health insurance.

    The alternative is that when an uninsured person gets hit by a bus, we taxpayers can all pay for their health care through the back door, which is considerably more expensive.

    There is a legitmate policy debate here IMO but it has not been well served by the demagoguery from both sides.


    I'll agree with that (none / 0) (#198)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    Neither side is willing to discuss new taxes.   Instead they both prefer to suggest that things will magically get better on their own.

    One point that favors HRC on this (none / 0) (#93)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    is that you need those poor 20-somethings paying more than they use so you can cover the older people who use more than they can pay.

    This is a very important point (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    By letting people who can afford healthcare (with or without assistance from the government) decide not to buy it, you are narrowing rather than broadening the pool, which inevitably leads to higher premiums because the insurers are taking on more risk.  You NEED younger, healthier insureds in the pool to make it economically feasible, and to reduce premium costs over all.

    Obama's plan simply refuses to recognize this.


    Oh I know (none / 0) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:07 PM EST
    that this is the plan.  I just don't see how you are going to force those 20 somethings to actually pay for the health insurance.  

    Those who have white collar or big company jobs already have health insurance.  Those who have part time jobs and can't get health insurance from their employer will now be required to pay for health insurance that they don't need and can't really afford.  

    FTR, it may be the better plan but that doesn't mean that Obama is lying when he criticizes it.


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    how do they "not need" health insurance?  Are they immune from accidents or getting sick?  One of my 20something friends just got diagnosed with diabetes the other day.

    In a society where we were truly willing to let people accept the consequences of their own actions, we could leave it up to voluntary choice.  If you choose not to buy insurance and you get hit by a car or develop cancer, oh well, we leave you to die at the curb.  But obviously we're not going to do that, so the answer is to force these people into the system from the get-go, rather than allowing them to indulge the fantasy that they're "opting out."


    Thus Obama's comment (none / 0) (#139)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    that we will require everyone to pay for health insurance is not a lie.  

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    no one is upset that Obama said we will require everyone to pay for health insurance.

    people are upset that Obama said we will require you to pay EVEN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, as if there are no subsidies in Clinton's plan.

    You're a smart guy.  Why does the discussion have to be so circular?  I'm not sure how you missed this threshold issue when it was explained to you way back in comment #26.


    That is a level of interpretation (none / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM EST
    You guys focus on the people that will be covered by subsidies.  Obama is focused on the people that won't be covered by subsidies.

    If there has been one substantive debate in this contest it has been over health care.  If you want to say that Obama is lying, that's your choice.  Personally I prefer to believe that they both simply disagree.


    And who (none / 0) (#184)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    are the people that won't be covered by subsidies?  Obama is simply assuming their existence.

    You're being silly (none / 0) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    Come on, Steve.  If no one is FORCED to pay for health insurance then the program isn't mandated, it is simply a new welfare program.  

    Hillary freely admits that people will be forced to pay.


    Sure (none / 0) (#189)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    People will be forced to pay, up to the level of their ability to pay.  There is a formula based on their income.

    From each according to their abilities, huh? (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST

    Seriously, the problem is that young folk don't make much money.  If you base it on income then either they wouldn't pay because they don't make enough or you would make the threshold so low that everyone has to pay.


    I didnt quite get that (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    "everyone has to pay" now when uninsured people get sick.
    Hillary has said, repeatedly, that a sliding scale will be used and that people who need help to pay for it will get it.
    it doesnt seem that difficult to understand.
    but there could be less money for 5 dollar lattes.

    I'm confused (none / 0) (#205)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    Like I said, people will be charged up to their ability to pay.  They may get a half-off discount, they may get it for free if they're completely impoverished, whatever.

    Yes, some of the people who get these subsidies will be young people.  Probably a lot of them will be, since old people are already covered under Medicare.  However, I don't see what the problem with this is.  What we've been discussing is that Obama is not accurate to say that people will be forced to pay even if they can't afford it, because that's not what Hillary's plan says.  Anyone who can't afford it will receive subsidies.


    The problem (none / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    is that this proposal has already been tried in Mass and it has faced a lot of problems because it is hard to make people get health care and they tend to get really bad coverage that covers almost nothing.

    Either we are forcing people to pay for their own health care or we are forcing everyone to pay for them.  But we are forcing it.


    There are key differences (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    with the Mass. plan.  Most significant is that state governments cannot run a deficit and so if they can't find enough money to fund the subsidies, oh well.  At the federal level we can work gradually towards a balanced budget without having to find all the money overnight.

    Also, Mass doesn't purport to be a real mandate, in that people are permitted to opt out simply by paying a small penalty.  That doesn't solve the problem of universal coverage, it doesn't help us any when those "opt-out" people show up at the hospital in need of care.

    Again, "forcing" is not the issue.  The issue is whether Hillary will make people pay even if they can't afford it.  The answer is no.


    That is the problem (none / 0) (#220)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
    you are making a subjective determination about what qualifies someone who can pay and someone who can't pay.

    You are choosing one side, Obama the other.


    what is your problem with that (none / 0) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    because I honestly dont get it.
    why the hell shouldnt you pay for it if you can afford it?

    once more (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    the LIE is that people who cant afford it will be forced to buy it.
    everyone will be able to afford it with subsidies.
    THAT is the lie.

    only if you ignore (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    the "whether they can afford it or not" part.  Sheesh that is so simple to understand.

    How? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    "how do they "not need" health insurance?"

    In a fiscally sound sort of way, the average person is far better off financially with no health coverage at all and the healthy person makes out like a bandit.

    For starters, as soon as you add a middle man (the health insurance company) you are adding a layer of expense. In addition, the elderly and the infirm jack the cost up for all. Health Insurance companies aren't the answer. They are part of the problem.


    if I understood that (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    it is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard

    saying (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    "people who cant afford it will be forced to buy it"
    is a lie.

    Now we get to the nitty gritty. The same point (none / 0) (#116)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    I've argued with many 20-somethings who don't think they should have to be a part of the pool to ensure that all Americans have insurance.

    attaching their wages (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    or whatever it takes when they show up at the emergency room for care and they are not insured.
    Obama actually said this in one of the debates.
    but I doubt he will follow through.

    wage garnishment? (none / 0) (#90)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    Why not just give them a bill, and garnishee their wages when they don't pay?  Skip the middleman of mandated insurance.

    seem a round (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    about way of doing the same thing to me.

    There will be no wage garnishment ! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    This is just another red herring.

    Is there wage garnishment for failing to pay auto insurance?  Auto insurance is mandated.


    No it isn't (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    auto insurance is not mandated.  It is only required if you have a vehicle registered in your name.

    Yeah, and healthcare would only ... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    be mandated if you're alive!

    Look into how hard it is for the government to garnish wages.  Even if you owe back taxes, there are many, many steps before your wages are garnished.

    There are laws about this that Universal Health Care won't (probably can't) over-write.


    Not in all states (none / 0) (#123)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    Ohio, for one.  Or at least it used to be.  "Never drive over the border into Ohio unless you have a hot date or cops in hot pursuit" my pappy used to say.

    But if you don't have auto insurance you get fined and may lose your license.  Will we fine people without health insurance?  Take away their license to be healthy.


    That's what we do now.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    ...and people end up either paying medical bills forever (because in the long run insurance is cheaper) or they don't pay them and get their credit rating ruined and getting hounded to death by debt collectors. Are anybody's wages really garnished anymore? I remember that as a threat from the old days.

    How do you (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    require people to enroll in health insurance? If I say "Nope, not doin' it" what then?

    FTR, insurance is not cheaper in the long run.  What it does is normalize costs over the span of your life.


    The reality is... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    ....if you can afford it and say nope not doing it and then show up at a hospital expecting to get treatment when you need it you are just a grasshopper. And yes, there will always be some of those and frankly I don't care about them.

    what if they die? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:23:34 PM EST
    Why not just give them a bill, and garnishee their wages when they don't pay?  Skip the middleman of mandated insurance.

    What if they are disabled?
    What if they lose their jobs?

    No one factors in the fact that medical insurance has many intangibles.  Look at the liability rider on your car.  Look at your home owner's policy for your house.  Look at your business insurance.  Look at your umbrella policy.  All of those have medical coverage.  Keep going, though.  Look at how clogged up the courts are with people suing to have medical bills paid.  Look at the number of medical bankruptcies in the courts.  

    Then, look at the people who have children who are so disabled that they turn them over to the state because they cannot afford the care.  Look at the people who lose their houses to pay for medical bills.  Look at the people who have to make decisions on whether to go to the doctor for an infection or wait until it's so bad that they have to go to the ER.  And you know what happens when they go to the ER and have emergency surgery?  WE pay for it.

    It's so shortsighted to think this is about a simple premium.  We will save BILLIONS by having universal healthcare.


    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#138)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    The point is not that mandates will increase transaction costs.  The point is how do you force someone to buy something that they don't want?

    how are people (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    "forced" to participate in social security?

    Federal law (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    that imposes a tax on both the employee and the employer?  

    Is that what you are proposing?  A new payroll tax?  Because I haven't heard a peep from the Clinton campaign about a new payroll tax.


    what (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    and give you guys more ammunition?
    she is smarter than that.
    and please dont try the argument about how insurance companies will love it when everyone "has to buy insurance".
    trust me.
    insurance companies will NOT love it when they are forced to cover everyone with no pre-existing condition crap.

    2 things (none / 0) (#208)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    So you agree that Hillary is not being upfront about her plan?  It is a new tax that she simply isn't willing to admit to.  I'm not against that, per se.  But let's call it what it is.

    Both Obama and Hillary calling for requiring insurance companies to accept anyone.


    This is a straw horse ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    you could make this argument about any federal law, program, statue, etc..

    The point is if the program isn't universal you cannot bring costs in line and offer the services that people need.


    Most federal laws (none / 0) (#163)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    don't impose an affirmative obligation.  And the ones that do don't apply to every single person in the country.

    Actually most of them do, (none / 0) (#180)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    you just think they don't because they are universally (heh) accepted.

    I just think they don't (none / 0) (#194)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    because I work with them every day.

    all right (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    The point is not that mandates will increase transaction costs.  The point is how do you force someone to buy something that they don't want?

    Do you have a job?  Look at your paycheck stub.  Notice the taxes taken out--unemployment, social security, etc.?  Are you familiar what happens April 15th of every year?

    Listen, if you want to know how this works, then study the programs in Canada, England, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany and France-just to name a few.  You are positing here that the system does not work.  These governments have proven that it works and that people comply.

    But, you still didn't answer my question about Obama's plan: he mandates healthcare for children.  How is he going to enforce that?  Why, I think he'll enforce it the same way Clinton will.


    one more thing (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    I lived and worked in Canada for most of two years.
    the system works.  it is not perfect but it works.
    AND it is the only time in the last 5 or 6 years that I have had health care until I took the job I now have specifically for that reason.
    I could not buy it.  and I am not poor. it was not a matter of not AFFORDING it.  I could not buy it because I have high blood pressure and high cholesterol and I am 57 years old.

    My daughter was denied insurance... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:28 PM EST
    ..at age 23 because she has asthma and put on her application that she was taking Zoloft (which she was taking for anxiety induced by the asthma attacks) and the insurance company wrote her back and told her that she was not insurably by them because she had two conditions---asthma and depression!

    what?! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    I am 57 years old

    You told me you were an athletic and outgoing 18 year old who likes long walks on the beach!!!


    oops (none / 0) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    we're all so much taller on the inter-tubes (none / 0) (#199)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:17:19 PM EST
    but (none / 0) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    I dont even like the beach

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    I always said I would like the beach it they paved it.  I hate sand.

    FTR, (none / 0) (#185)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    I don't think that Obama's mandates will work either.  

    I asked the same question (none / 0) (#28)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    and Capt. Howdy's response was that everyone will be able to afford it.  So to me it seems less of a lie and more that Capt Howdy rejects one of Obama's premises.

    Whether you agree with her that every single person in the country will be able to afford healthcare under her plan I leave to you.  It seems at least a debatable proposition.


    can (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    people on Medicaid "afford it"

    So there is an entitlement (none / 0) (#50)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    that would cover people with no income and no assets?

    heres the real problem (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    the people Obama is playing to are young, mostly men, who do not WANT to buy insurance because the think they are invulnerable and will live forever.
    there are lots of people right now who can afford insurance who do not have it.  this is wrong and it is a mistake that all of us pay for and will continue to pay for unless EVERYONE is brought into the system.

    those people (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    are already covered under Medicaid

    You do realize (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:07:45 PM EST
    we pay for that right?  It isn't free.  We pay 3% of  salary to Medicare.

    if the entire system (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    was brought under control the prices would drop dramatically.
    thats a fact.

    More of a theory (none / 0) (#97)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    and one with a lot of pitfalls hidden in words like "system" and "under control"

    and arguments like that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:19:12 PM EST
    are why we maintain our status and the only first world country that is unable to provide health care to all its citizens.
    are you proud of this?

    That is a consequentialist argument (none / 0) (#108)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    and thus a fallacy.  

    whatever (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    that is a valley girl argument and the only response that comment deserves.

    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    in fact, our wages are garnished to pay for it.  The unthinkable concept that the public will never accept.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    I think we as a country are ready for this.
    the country needs leadership.  honest leadership.
    maybe you have health coverage.  lots and lots of people do not are are searching for help and answers.
    the ones in need are finally in the majority.

    what about Obama's mandates (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    that parents pay for their children to be insured?

    What about them? (none / 0) (#57)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    I thought the issue here was whether Obama is lying about Clinton's plan, not the merits of Obama's plan.  "Obama is a liar" is the meme for this thread.

    what he is doing (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    with this lie is exactly what the republicans and the insurance companies did in the 90s with Harry and Louise.
    you are probably not old enough to remember Harry and Louise (maybe you are) but most of us who are do not remember them fondly.

    That is an emotional response (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    You want Obama to cede the health care issue to Clinton.  And because he doesn't you accuse him of using Republican talking points.

    The truth is the truth.  


    it is not an emotional response (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    it is an observation.  and I am not the first to make it.

    and it you want to talk about lies (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    heres another.
    Obama will do exactly the same thing but he will wait until you need the coverage to "force" you to afford it.

    about lies (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    but really
    the worst lie of all from Obama is this.
    I dont believe he really cares much about this issue.
    but that is just an opinion and we may get to see if  I am right about that or not.
    personally I think his approach will change nothing.

    well, I wouldn't call him a Hillary blogger (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    but Bob Somerby is so dedicated to exposing media bias that he's always revealing new evidence of the hate campaign against the Clintons, and the lovefest with Obama.

    Somerby is mentioned (none / 0) (#24)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM EST
    in the original post, in an update.  I love that blog.

    Dr Laura weighs in on Spitzer (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST
    and of course knows where to place the blame:

    When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings -- sexually, personally -- to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman. [...]


    My God, women can be so awful to other women.  

    I think I will be sick (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    True (none / 0) (#38)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    A headline article on the MSM today stated that powerful men commit adultery because they "need the next jolt."  That makes more sense to me.

    I would buy the "next jolt" argument (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    if it was about conquest.  This is a financial transaction.  Spitzer paid for sex.  There was no charming, no wooing, no soft whispers in the ear. His power and influence did not come into play.  This was, "I bought you for a period of time and you have to submit everything I do no matter how debasing or humiliating."

    It's too bad that I hadn't fully digested lunch (none / 0) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    before I read that quote from Dr. Laura.

    Yes, it is always the woman's fault. In Dr. Laura's book, there's no such thing as a bad husband -- just bad wives. I'm sure Mrs. Spitzer will find consolation and strength from Dr. Laura's insights.


    oh- another to add (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    the daily howler has been all over the unfair media coverage of clinton!

    Here's one you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by gish720 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    The dailyhowler.com is fair but I think he leans toward Clinton. I guess I should say IMO.

    And thanks, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    for all that you do here.

    It is such a blessed relief to come to a site that presents the policies and positions fairly and uses those enlightment tools of evidence and reasoning, or go la la la I can't hear you when any candidate is criticized.

    I haven't read them ALL (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    but I have read a fair number of these pro-Clinton blogs and I want to make an observation.

    I have seen comments on them that are anti-Obama, of course, but they tend to be mild and substantive, not hair-raising character attacks (on the candidate and on the candidate's supporters) and nasty invective.

    There's a huge difference between the two blog species, I believe.  Why is that?

    Do you mean they don't discuss his thick ankles (none / 0) (#222)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    and his screeching voice?

    Off topic: Geraldine Ferraro? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    I am hopeful someone here will address Ferrarro`s remarks, as they seem to be the latest "That`s racist!" meme.

    I saw that at Brad DeLong quoting Spencer Ackerman quoting Kos quoting the Daily Breeze, and I am appalled at how out of context the remarks are being taken.

    (Also note: to JM, I apologize for last night` post, I didn`t realize I had put any profanity in it, though Auguste`s cartoon was certainly profane...)

    And if you`re wondering why ` and not an apostrophe.  Stupid firefox bug that had disappeared and now come back..... grrr..

    I admire (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    the Obama campaign's ability to play that one to the hilt, including the "worse than Samantha Power" gambit, but one wonders if there will be any non-Obama supporting Democrat who won't have been painted as racist by the end of this story.

    For what it's worth, I think Ferraro was mistaken: Obama certainly enjoys some political advantages because of his race, but he has plenty of disadvantages too.  Among other things, if it weren't for his unusual background he wouldn't be having to deal with a massive whispering campaign about whether he's secretly Muslim.

    The whole game of "what if Obama were white" or "what if Hillary were male" is just silly, because obviously they'd be totally different people with totally different life experiences.  What if I'd been born as an Australian aborigine?  In what sense would that aborigine even be "me"?


    Her remarks were unfortunate (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    Hillary's reply appropriate:

    Hillary was asked about Ferraro's comments. "I do not agree with that. It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," Hillary said.

    "We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we've produced for people. That's what this campaign should be about."

    So who will be first to criticize her.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    ...for using "kind of" to qualify "veer off." ;-)

    Do you think (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    he is lucky to be an African-American?

    That comments smacks of Right-wing attacks against Affirmative Action.


    Take his resume (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:16 PM EST
    and attach it to a woman.  Imagine a woman with that resume running for president.  And no, it would not be comparable to Hillary's resume, not by a long shot.  The work with the Children's Defense Fund, on education and health care while First Lady of Arkanas, the actual work as First Lady of the US, her 8 years in the Senate - and people are still not taking her as seriously as they take him.

    Imagine that resume attached to a white man.  Ask John Edwards why he couldn't be taken seriously.  Look at the resumes of Biden and Dodd and Richardson - loaded with experience and ability.  Still no traction.  A lot of people have worked very hard to see past race, to accept people on a level playing field, to teach their children tolerance and acceptance, and I find it pretty offensive at times that that hard work gets taken advantage of by people of color who want to hold us to standards they want to exempt themselves from.

    What is it about Obama that makes him The One?  Is it just the message of Hope and Change and Unity?  Is it just that he's not been inside the Beltway as long?  Is it that he is just one more "new" thing, and everyone loves "new?"

    I can't answer that, but I think Ferraro was trying, in a rather ham-handed way, to come up with something that explained it.

    I don't see him as a black man - yes, I see that his skin is dark, but it doesn't define him for me.  So, I look at his actual bona fides - the things he brings to the table in a color-blind, gender-neutral way - and maybe that's why I just don't get what the excitement is all about.

    I have to say, also, that the racial divide is alive and well - and I think that if we are ever to close it, or get over it, it cannot be that it is okay for the Obama campaign to use racially coded language to sway people to his side, while everyone else walks on eggshells hoping not to be branded a racist.

    I hope I have managed to express that in a way that will not brand me a racist - just an ordinary woman who is saddened that in these historic times, the opportunities we have to really come together are being squandered, and it is not all on one side of the equation.


    Funny (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    you don't see him as a black man but you certainly have no problem stating that the reason he has succeeded is because he is a black man.

    Do you think it is is acceptable for Hillary and her surrogates to implore women to vote for Hillary?


    I never stated any such thing (none / 0) (#157)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    I made an attempt to explore a little more what Ferraro had written, but specifically said that I could not answer what it was that made him a credible candidate, looking only at his resume.

    Because I truly do not know why people are so taken with him - there simply is not, in my mind, anything extraordinary about him.  Ferraro apparently thinks that were it not for his race, no one would be looking at him as a credible candidate for the office - but I'm not Ferraro, and she does not speak for me, nor I for her.  I  did not go there.

    Maybe you think I did it without saying it, but you're free to think whatever you want.


    Do I think it would be acceptable for a Jewish ... (none / 0) (#217)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    candidate and his/her surrogates to vote for the Jew because he was a Jew?

    Yeah, you betcha.  It would happen.  People would discuss it too.

    That candidate needs to bring more to the table than just being Jewish, but yeah, stuff happens like that.

    To pretend it doesn't, to pretend that Clinton does not get votes just because she is female, Romney doesn't get votes just because he is Mormon, Obama does not get votes just because he is black, ....  That's absurd.

    I am hopeful that the majority of Americans will demand more than race, creed, color, gender, .... but I acknowledge that most of us WILL examine those traits and use them to predict beliefs, behavior, etc.

    For instance, one reason Spitzer, Feinstein, and Mukasey piss me off is BECAUSE they are Jewish.  As are so many of the neocon's Bush surrounded himself with.  I frankly expect more of them.

    And amongst the many reasons I am a fan of Wesley Clark IS because of his Jewish connections.

    I think identity politics of the sort that creates a nation of self-proclaimed victims is destructive.  But there it is entire human to see someone from a similar background and root for them, and even to take your pride in them, and place it on yourself.


    Didi Meyers (none / 0) (#142)
    by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    said something very close to this on a radio show I heard yesterday.  She was addressing how women are held to higher standards.  Essentially, she said that a woman with Obama's resume wouldn't be able to run for President.  It was a topical remark but was said completely independent from this Ferraro flap.

    Didi apparently just wrote a book, "Why Women Should Rule the World".

    I agree with her, btw.


    Can one (none / 0) (#60)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    be purely objective on this question?  It seems obvious to me that Geraldine Ferraro is simply stating a fact.

    Obama was drafted to run because he is black and only a black candidate could have stopped Hillary's momentum because "race" has split the Democratic vote.  Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy and Daschle counted on that.  

    In addition, one only need read the blogs to see that AAs all over the country and even AA Superdelegates are being threatened if they don't support Obama.  A white man could not have garnered such power.  

    Could a white man imitate MLK's speech pattern and use that to draw the AA vote to him?  No.  

    And finally, Obama himself spread the lie that the Clintons had made "racist remarks" and "denigrated MLK's legacy"  and him after NH and NV.  That's what turned the tide for Obama in SC.  

    Yes, race has been a powerful weapon for Barack Obama.


    Really? (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    Can you point to the objective evidence that supports the notion that Obama is "lucky" to be an African-American?  I would love to see it.

    Let's see (none / 0) (#164)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    He father was Kenyan and his mother was white... he was born in HI. He lived in Indonesia...from the age of 10 he was raised by his white grandparents....  he's a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School... and his Wikipedia is currently protected from any editing(I thought that last part was interesting)

    His heritage is difficult to compare with A-A. In that ...  Michelle was frustrated that people did not think he was black enough. So this is really a touchy subject that everyone should stay away from no matter what their race.


    fact or not (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    it was a completely idiotic thing to say

    Since there`s another thread for it (none / 0) (#92)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    I won`t discuss it here (though that thread is over 200 comments...?)

    I think her remarks were taken out of context and she was discussing his position in the race, not his race.

    As I`ve said many times both Clinton and Obama are playing gutless campaigns and I think they have both been successful based not on their past demonstrations of leadership, but on her gender and his race.

    This is not to say he hasn`t experienced racism or she hasn`t experienced sexism, but both did have privileged childhoods compared to most Americans and I doubt either candidate would challenge that.  Especially Obama who has discussed his "middle class" upbringing and the virtue of growing up in Hawaii where he saw many cultures all in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

    But that`s my take -- I really didn`t intend to hijack the thread.


    there's a thread on this (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    by Big Tent Democrat here.

    Heads up: Race-baiting not allowed here.


    I thought Ferraro said the same thing (none / 0) (#146)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    in the op-ed she had in the NYT about a month ago.  Or maybe it was in Gloria Steinem's op-ed.  Or maybe they both said it.  I know that Obama wouldn't be in the Senate with his resume if he were a woman.

    You don't know that (none / 0) (#166)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    I have no idea if she is an idiot.  But she sure said a dumb thing.  

    FTR, I don't think that her comments should be placed on the shoulders of Hillary's.  Surrogates say dumb things and they should pay the consequences rather than the candidate itself.

    The Red Phone in Black and White (none / 0) (#30)
    by znosaro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    Did anyone catch this at the Times this morning?

    Doesn't it seem like a bit much?

    "I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man"

    "Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino."

    What does "vaguely Latino" even mean?  I am so confused.  Is there anything Hillary can do that is NOT racist?

    As someone who is more than (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    "vaguely" Latino -- all four of my grandparents, and my father -- grew up in Puerto Rico, I found Professor Patterson's comments very offensive, on several different levels.

    Let's stipulate for argument's sake that the ad is a negative ad (I don't really agree, but I can see why an Obama supporter would see it that way). But racist? A racist "subtext"? "Birth of a Nation"? Lurking black man?  What on earth was he talking about? Did he think that Hillary was talking about taking 3 am calls from the Community Watchdogs or the KKK?

    The images of parents and children were meant to invoke the concerns and fears that all parents have about the future our children will inherit, the economic, military and political consequences of the bad decisions that our leaders have made over the last eight years, and the bad decisions that could yet be made. Is that fearmongering? I don't think so. National security is a legitimate issue in this campaign, and one that either Clinton or Obama will have to face in a contest with John "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain.

    But racist? That was just ridiculous. If Patterson is a professor at Harvard, all I can say is, thank goodness my daughter is going to Yale next fall.


    Possible the dumbest op-ed (4.00 / 1) (#81)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    ever to appear on the pages of the NYT.  It's becoming fish wrap now.  These words should strike fear into anyone who cares about education.

    Orlando Patterson ... Professor at Harvard.


    oops... (none / 0) (#37)
    by znosaro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    It seems the relevant link did not post the first time... here it is

    Oh goodie.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    .. the "academics" are now weighing in. We're bound to have some real top notch parsing and context placing now.

    Easy, I'm an academic! (none / 0) (#141)
    by Redstar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    And I generally like Patterson's work (though not this time), though he's a bit of a lightning rod in academia.

    Sorry, I had second thoughts after posting that. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    ....some of my best friends are academics. ;-)

    that Sean Wilentz piece (none / 0) (#196)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    may have been the low point for analysis from the professorial set.

    compared to this dreck (none / 0) (#202)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    Sean Wilentz was peer reviewed research  :-)

    Yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    I had a hard time believing that the 3 am in the morning ad is racist.

    I could see a backlash on this one.


    I read about it (none / 0) (#191)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    on The Daily Howler today.  My new routine is to check out TalkLeft throughout the day and spend my lunch hour reading Somerby b/c he usually posts around the time I go to lunch.

    "Vaguely Latino"? Sounds sinister, doesn't it?  I suppose it's a backhanded swipe at Hillary's Latino supporters.

    This is pathetic. Playing the race card is bound to backfire on Obama and his supporters, if not now, then surely in the GE.

    Congrats to your daughter for getting into Yale!


    Dreck is right (none / 0) (#209)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    I mean, read the thing. There can't be a picture of a mother taking care of her child at 3AM without images of Birth of a Nation being called up?



    John Amato (none / 0) (#32)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    over at C & L is pretty solidly in Obama's camp.  His bloggers certainly are. He doesn't feature the smears, etc, but he's promoting Obama.

    I gave Taylor Marsh a plug this morning.  For some reason, Paul Loeb keeps sending me anti-Hillary rants.  He questioned where the documents to show that Hillary didn't contact the Canadian P. M. were posted.  The first site I could remember was TM.  

    I support Obama, but I agree that some pro Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    blogs are just out there.  

    A couple of recent examples.  

    Kos declares that if Hillary gets less than the 19 she got in today's SUSA poll she loses.  Huh?  (I'm not even going to get into the whole darkened video thing.  Oy.)

    Andrew Sullivan
    looks at this graph and sees Obama surging.  I look at it and see a contest that's like a race car on an oil slick, you never know where it is going next. (See the most recent version for evidence of that.)

    (I also think some of the pro Hillary posters here are utterly blind to her faults, like the incoherence of saying Obama is unfit to be Commander in Chief, but once she's dead who cares.)

    Can people talking about polls ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    could just dump the term "surging?"  Clearly, that's not what's happening.

    Your oil slick metaphor is much more apt.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#136)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    on the CIC thing. Seems kinda stupid. Kerry said the same about Edwards 4 years ago and look how well that turned out.

    One thing is not like the other... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    The excitement of the race pitting Illinois Senator Barack Obama against New York Senator Hillary Clinton ``definitely adds something the Secret Service hasn't seen in a while,'' said Andrew O'Connell, a special agent in the 1990s who is now a managing director at New York-based Fortress Global Investigations and Security Corp.

    Besides the fact that Obama is the first black candidate with a chance to win the party nomination, Clinton is a ``polarizing figure'' dating back to her time as first lady, O'Connell said.

    I read this artice about the security concerns of the Secret Service today at lunch and it irked me. I realize we haven't had a women physically harmed while running for President, but exactly how many have been this close?


    Not sure I understand what irked you (none / 0) (#109)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:05 PM EST
    I think its fair to think that Obama is at more risk.  I'm not aware of any sexist equivalent to the organized, paramilitary racist groups that exist in this country.  

    I'm not weighing in on the which-is-worse-sexism-or-racism debate because I think its a stupid debate.  I just think on this narrow issue Obama probably has more reason to worry.


    "Polarizing figure" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    irks me.

    Yeah, you are right and I'm just being touchy. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    I do, though, think that there are more nuts out there who hate HC than there are Obama. It irked me that the former agent mentioned that he's the first serious AA candidate but not that she is the first serious female one. The author of the article did mention it though.

    I guess it was the "tone" that got me because I also worry about Obama's safety (not so much as an AA but the idiots with the Muslim fears). I've received those awful emails from former coworkers that I thought had some sense.


    I don't disagree with your criticisms (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    of the article, but don't for a second underestimate how seriously dangerous some of these white supremacist groups are.  The Southern Poverty Law Center does great work on tracking them.  Particularly scary is their report on supremacists infiltrating the military.

    I'm sure this stuff is keeping the Secret Service up nights (and life once again imitates the West Wing).


    I know, you're right. I agree with you. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    I just didn't like the way Clinton was characterized but what you said is certainly true and scary.

    I don't think it's just the racist factor (none / 0) (#174)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    although of course that's not to be discounted.  It's his populist appeal, those huge crowds, women fainting - it's reminiscent of RFK.  For some reason, that sort of candidate tends to bring out the nutjobs.  I suppose Reagan was another example of this, although I don't think anybody ever fainted over Ronnie except possibly in horror at his policies.

    More (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    Craig Crawford doesn't rail against Clinton, so I guess that means he's pro-Clinton ;-).

    And I had another one and lost it...

    You should read that new book (none / 0) (#133)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    about short-term memory loss (in everyone as we get older) by--oh, I forgot what her name is.

    But it's a very interesting book--"Where did I Leave my Glasses?"


    Maybe so, but it's gotta wait ;-) (none / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    I'm studying for finals and my brain is full.  I can tell you the mechanism of action of macrolide antibiotics (or can I?) but I can't tell you my own name.

    2nd college degree at 44 years of age.  The definition of pain.


    Reminds me also of Paul McCartney's (none / 0) (#158)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    recent album, Memory Almost Full.

    As for my glasses? They are usually on top of my head as I hurtle through the apartment looking for them desperately.


    Lasik works well for that. The best thing I (none / 0) (#168)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    ever did.

    Well i'm nearsighted (none / 0) (#227)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    and if I got Lasik now, in middle age, I guess I'd need reading glasses, so it doesn't seem like an attractive option.

    Can Really Relate To The Glasses n/t (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#226)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    On the book jacket there is a person looking for their glasses and they are--duh--perched up on her head.

    I've done it too.

    Also, when my kids were still  home, I offered 'em a buck to find them for me.  I don't remember if that ever worked, though.


    Craig Crawford... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    one of the MSNBC casualties for not having drunk from the sacred cup of Obamadom. Always a favorite. Ive wondered if he'd write about seemingly being frozen out in this whole mess.

    Can't open the list from here. But, (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    is Digby on it?  If BTD and Jeralyn are, seems like Digby should be also.  Always smart and fair.

    Did anyone say Corrente? (none / 0) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    Thanks from Corrente (none / 0) (#212)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:40:53 PM EST
    I should say that Corrente collectively hasn't endorsed anyone, and, in fact, some of The Fellows of The Mighty Corrente Building have endorsed Obama. We hound out bad writers and people pushing stupid arguments, and not supporters of this or that candidate (as such).

    I love Clarence Page (none / 0) (#169)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    to bits! He is on the Tweety Hour now. Ferraro comments don't bother him. He said if Obama were white he would be John Edwards. Funny! Also, he thinks the red phone article is over the top and doesn't agree. Even Michelle Bernard doesn't think the red phone is racist. Tweety is just throwing everything out there so see if he can get something to stick.

    Have you read (none / 0) (#172)
    by elmey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST

    Very thoughtful and interesting.  Sorry if he's been mentioned before, I didn't have time to check the whole thread.

    Any updates yet on Mississippi? (none / 0) (#176)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    Can hardly wait to see if BTD's analysis of the primary holds.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#177)
    by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    Thanks for posting this list -- there are a couple listed I haven't visited before.

    Speaking of blogs (none / 0) (#204)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    If any of you are on Live Journal, I co-moderate a humble little Hillary Clinton community on LJ called clinton_2008.  As might be expected, the commentary is not as informed and erudite as it is here, but I find it inspirational that many very young women (some of them too young to vote, alas) and yes, some guys, are strong Hillary supporters.  In fact, one of our members is going to be a Hillary delegate at the Colorado convention.

    We have a links section on our User Info Page and I've linked this blog as well as several others which are mentioned on this thread.

    Check this out (none / 0) (#218)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:04:54 PM EST
    Comments over 200 (none / 0) (#231)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    now closed, thanks everyone.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#232)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:50:33 AM EST
    Don't forget to check out Hillary1000 on a regular basis. We (RedStar, pocochina, me commenters) have fun there.

    Another site for HRC (none / 0) (#233)
    by jpete on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:58:30 AM EST
    At least in the senses of defending Hillary from (some of)the sexist smear attacks; one main writer more pro-Obama than the other:


    Jerome Armstrong and Todd Beeton at MyDD (none / 0) (#234)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    Also are with Clinton.

    I am not, but thought they deserved to be on the list.  Beeton especially is a Clinton supporter, along with TL, who I still reader.

    Taylor Marsh my blood boil, but I guess that's her schtick.  Hopefully, if Obama's the nominee, she's just as tenacious.

    As far as Obama-leaning bloggers go, here are my favorites:

    Chris Bowers
    Matthew Yglesias
    John Aravosis
    Oliver Willis
    Josh Marshall
    Kid Oakland
    Mike Lux