home

Bill Maher: Hillary For VP

More on my theme of the day - Bill Maher on Larry King last night:

KING: So who do you -- who do you handicap? Do you think it's going to be one of these three boring white guys?

MAHER: I do, but I think that's, again, the wrong -- the wrong sort of strategy. At this point I think they need Hillary Clinton. . . . Yes. Look, I may change my mind tomorrow. I've been thinking this way a long time, but I swear to God. Not just because it's bold and they need to show bold, but you know what? I think they need the Clinton ruthlessness onboard. I really do.

I'm beginning to think Bill Clinton is still the only guy in that party who really knows how to do this, as far as talking to the American people, making the counter argument to the Republican arguments that, again, Obama just seems to be cozying up to their way of thinking. . . .

Awakening to the political virtues of Bill and Hillary Clinton? Could it be a trend?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Political Toughness | Making Pay Equity a Campaign Issue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Maher can go straight to Halifax (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    Obama now "needs" Hillary's "ruthlessness"? Excuse me, bub -- Obama's got enough ruthlessness of his own. Of course, Maher didn't notice that because he was too consumed with CDS to see it during the primaries.

    Ruthlessness against Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    is what he means. And I agree.

    Parent
    I'm sure that's what you mean, (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    but is that what Maher meant?  

    Maher is a misogynistic gasbag.  Why can't Hillary be tough?  Or simply a Democrat?  No, she's ruthless, eh?

    And what's with the notion that Bill is the only good communicator in the family?  Did he just win the most votes in the Democratic primary?

    I agree that Hillary should be Obama's choice, but I also think that Maher is a creep.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    Was just going to write essentially the same thing. After Bill Maher's diatribes about Hillary, I bristle at him even saying her name.

    Parent
    He's not being honest, IMHO (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    Because he spent so much time bashing her, and because he has a huge (and rather nasty) ego, he can't come right out and say why he really thinks she should be VP.  He says she's ruthless.  What he really means what he said (about Bill) later on in his statement:
    ...making the counter argument to the Republican arguments that, again, Obama just seems to be cozying up to their way of thinking...

    He's saying that she knows her stuff, can debate and argue well, and has a coherent and consistent message, and Obama doesn't.

    When he says that:

    I'm beginning to think Bill Clinton is still the only guy in that party who really knows how to do this, as far as talking to the American people...

    In my opinion, he's talking about both Clintons.  He has a hard time giving Hillary credit for having the same ability, but clearly she does.  And Obama clearly doesn't, unless he's talking about vague messages of hope and change in a large forum of adoring supporters.

    So, while Maher does place emphasis on "needing Clinton ruthlessness onboard" he goes on to explain what they do well, and guess what, the things he credits them with are not ruthlessness.  He credits them with being in touch with the American people, with being able to counter the Republicans, and by saying this, he credits them with being able to win (something no other Democrats but them have been able to do with the presidency in recent years).

    Like many people, Bill Maher just can't bring himself to give the Clintons credit where credit is due, straight up and honestly.  So in his roundabout way, without admitting how wrong he's been, he did spell out what makes Hillary the best choice.

    Parent

    He also kept talking about (none / 0) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    not having an ideological fighter on the ticket. He said that just isn't who Obama is. He seemed disappointed in that fact as well.

    it was really a very interesting interview.

    Parent

    Yes, but (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    if the Democrats need the Clintons' ruthlessness, why does Hillary need Obama?  That's the larger question.  This whole situation is comepletely Orwellian.  He should be VP and she should be Prez.  

    It's not too late!

    Parent

    Yes. Obama needs an (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    effective and compelling attack dog.

    Someone to point out that McCain will be drugged up on Ambien at 3am.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    You're right. And honestly if anyone could deliver a punch in the gut with a smile on their face it is darling Hillary!

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:49:21 AM EST
    She's my heroine.

    Parent
    Mine too! (none / 0) (#30)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    Halifax is a very nice place (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    Charming town. Wonderful people. They don't deserve Bill Maher. Although I agree that Obama is certainly ruthless enough for any Presidential race. If anything, the Clinton's need to be more ruthless - they were playing softball during the primary while Obama was taking their players out one at a time with beanballs.

    Parent
    I really think she did all she could (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    look at what has been and is being said about how McCain is "using Hillarys attacks".
    there was only so much she could do and still be viable in a democratic primary.  her problem was not lack of attacks it was lack of organization.

    Parent
    It's hard to fight (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    sanctimony and hypocrisy, especially when it is buoyed by a pundit class that lives and dies by those traits.
    I was laughing at how the Obama folks still look in the mirror and see themselves as on this moral high ground, not connected to us regular folks.  They were all spinning how wonderful it was that their candidate was meeting with T. Boone Pickens.  It was so wonderful how he could rich out and forgive the man who financed the Swiftboaters.  This is the same crowd whot declared Senator Clinton a whore and **itch for daring to talk to Murdoch or Scaife.

    It saddens me to see that sanctimony and hypocrisy is embedded in that wing of the party.  It makes a perfect target for the righties who laugh at the phony do-gooder meme.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton (4.33 / 6) (#173)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    did not at any time "attack" Obama during the primaries.  She pointed out his weaknesses.  Isn't that what candidates are supposed to do?  He called her a racist and--gasp--a Wal-Mart boardie, and a bunch of other disrespectful names.  But we still hear that Hillary "attacked" Obama and he's a "new" politician.

    Please!  It doesn't get lower than having your surrogates say that you're "pimping your daughter" to win an election.  That might have slang connotation to Gen X, Y, and Z, but to people in my generation it's just a dirty sexist word.  Obama should be ashamed, instead the "youth" and the DNC made him the nominee.

    Parent

    Different kinds of ruthless (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    The Clinton ruthlessness is based in principle and values worth the effort to stand and fight for. They use logic, conviction and compassion.

    Parent
    Superb JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#168)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    That is a key point. I am with Barney Frank that many of the battles of the 90's Obama so irresponsibly deried were might worth fight for. They were about being a DEMOCRAT.

    Parent
    Yeah, Gimme A Break! (5.00 / 15) (#25)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    He spends weeks bashing Hillary in every way he can think of.  He hosted only those guests who would echo his childish insulting commentary of her, and prevented those ( like Barney Frank ) who didn't from returning to the show.  He completely lost credibility as any kind of analyst, not to mention my respect for him as an ally on social/political commentary.  It's not that I resented his endorsement of Obama.  He has every right to endorse whomever he wants, IMO.  It was the dishonest, unnecessary and unsubstantiated smearing of Hillary each week that destroyed his reputation.  

    Now, he wants to walk back on all the slander and smear. Yeah, now that he aided in defeating the b!tch, he can "make nice" and ask for her help in winning.  What a hypocrite!


    Parent

    Bill Maher can go (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    farther than Halifax as far as I'm concerned. He is one more contributor to the mess we are in in this election. If BO cannot do the heavy lifting himself at the top of the ticket then he should NOT be the nomninee.

    All this talk about now needing HRC: What a nerve...

    Bill Maher and his friends trashed the Clinton's left and right. Now, live with it.

    And don't blame me: I voted for Hillary to be thenominee. I do not want her to be VP because it feels extraordinarly demeaning imho.


    Parent

    And I will add (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    Bill Maher is Just now begining to think?

    I'm beginning to think Bill Clinton is still the only guy in that party who really knows how to do this, as far as talking to the American people,

    This has always been obvious. Bill and Hillary Clinton know how to do it because they understand, they know and they feel it: you cannot feign empathy. The Clintons always bring people along for the ride when they talk to them; think with them, reason with them.  This is not and cannot be an adquired talent. It is innate.

    Parent

    Please...BTD (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    I'm working...and I can't afford to replace the monitor.

    Bill Maher (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    Another idiot on the list of people I don't watch anymore.....maybe he's right this time, but so is my broken clock.

    HBO (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Dave B on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    I had originally subscribed to HBO to get the Sapranos.

    When they went off the air, the only reason I stuck with it was so I could watch Bill Haher.  But I couldn't stomach him anymore after his Obama love affair and his bashing of the Clintons.  HBO is off my subscription, likely for good.

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#175)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    That is one of my husband's favorite sayings.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    it's too late now. Um, this has been obvious since March. I hate these craven pundits. They are so out of touch and clueless.

    Hillary knows how to talk to the American people (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    Yeah that's nice and all but it's still the frame that Hillary is ruthless and Bill is the compassionate one.

    BOTH CLINTONS know how to talk to middle America without talking down to them.

    this is true (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    but they also know how to play dirty.

    And I like it.

    Parent

    They didn't play dirty this time (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    the press is so ready to pounce on anything they do as playing dirty that they have to tread very carefully.

    People said the 3a.m. ad was dirty. That was THE TAMEST ad I've seen ever. It never mentioned Obama's name. It was a pro-Hillary ad.

    Parent

    Well as much as there is a lot of (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    upset in these comments about the use of the word "ruthless" the reality is that people are now running towards Senator Clinton because they are finally figuring out that Americans like a little bit of "ruthless" in their leaders - it is something Americans love to hate - but really deep down they respect it and understand that they need it in some measure in their leaders.  The love affair with kumbaya always seems to sour the moment that someone starts launching attacks that get too close for comfort.  I for one am glad that there is at least one or two Democrats around that Americans even think of as ruthless - I think it is good thing - means they have a spine - and hopefully give some cover for the large majority who don't.

    Parent
    I've always said that (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    I want her on my side.

    Parent
    I still laugh that (4.63 / 11) (#77)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    Americans call being smart and strong and better "ruthless" when the Clintons are involved.  Calling Obama inexperienced was viewed with shock from the Obama folks....with a "How dare you?"  shock.
    But Obama calling Hillary a racist was "just politics."

    What jerks!

    Parent

    That whole racist thing was ruthless. (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    Problem is that I knew from the start that camp Obama didn't ever have the guts to do that to a Republican and therefore it was actually more foolish and irresponsible than it was ruthless.  They should have saved the attacks of racism for the real racists - but this goes back to my new theory that Obama's team never really thought they were going to win - now they've blown their ammo and are flailing around trying to figure out how to run a general election campaign against a far more ruthless opponent than Senator Clinton ever was to them.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    They should have saved the attacks of racism for the real racists - but this goes back to my new theory that Obama's team never really thought they were going to win

    They tried to introduce the same ammo against McCain, it blew up in their face.

    They knew the DNC wouldn't let them lose, they played their strategy inside that arena.
     

    Parent

    It did blow up because they'd (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    already used it on the Clintons and lost credibility in doing so.  On that issue they no longer have any credibility because they over-played their hand.  Meanwhile John McCain who voted against and worked hard against Martin Luther King Day among other things is now completely insulated from what would have been a fairly reasonable point of attack.  McCain is anything but "inclusive" in his political philosophy.  They could have made much of his record, but that's done now because they foolishly lied about the Clintons.

    Parent
    They forgot this was no longer the primary (none / 0) (#202)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    and their "enemy" was not Hillary.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#48)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    but I am fine with her playing dirty. Its called politics, it's to be expected.

    Parent
    How the heck is it dirty (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:09:24 AM EST
    implying that your opponent is not as experienced or ready as you are???

    Please, someone, explain this to me.

    All I get is that the Obama camp is composed of a bunch of crybabies who cannot handle criticism.  
    Hillary is a competitor.  
    Obama is a whiner.

    If he cannot handle being called inexperienced or unready. sheesh...he ought to never compete at all.
    Competitors better damn well believe they are the better one, the more experienced one, the one who can get the job done.  

    Parent

    Well, it is pretty difficult to say (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    how much of what the media beat to death was being echoed by Hillary. I remember her being quite reasonable and minimalistic in her direct criticisms of Obama. Just because the media reported one comment at one event 4.325 million times doesn't mean Hillary said it more than once.


    Parent
    because it is the same (none / 0) (#61)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    tactic used to scare people into the arms of the GOP in 2004.

    And it is EFFECTIVE! She should use it against the GOP.

    Parent

    Give me a break (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    The GOP used lies about Kerry's service.  And would not allow anyone to look into W's AWOL years.

    Saying that your experience is better than your opponents is not a scare tactic.  Yes, it is scary to think someone who is more about vacations and being a rock star than working long and hard to establish policy gets to deal with a crisis.  That's not a scare tactic.  It's just reality.

    I want a worker not a rock star, not a guy who kids think is "cool", not an empty suit who speaks well.
    Calling that ruthless is just silly.

    Parent

    Do you take yourself seriously after this comment? (none / 0) (#82)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM EST
    Yes, it is scary to think someone who is more about vacations and being a rock star than working long and hard to establish policy gets to deal with a crisis.

    You aren't talking about Obama.

    Read what I wrote. I don't find "ruthless" a negative trait in politics. i find misrepresentation and lying negative though, like saying what you just did.

    Obama does not act the way you pretend.

    I have always had the utmost respect for both our candidates.

    Their diehard supporters, not so much sometimes.

    Parent

    It's may not have been Obama (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    who acted like he was a rock star in the beginning.  It was his minions who turned him into it.  And on some levels, it seems like he is buying it.  

    Sorry if you don't like my opinions but they are my views.......opinions are what it's all about.

    For me, whenever I read the "Hillary is ruthless, Obama is inspiring" crap, I react.  It's untrue, unfair and I won't accept it.
    Hillary's team tried to paint Obama as inexperienced, and herself as more experienced to deal with crises.  I see that as legitimate and honest.  If she does not see herself as better with dealing with crises, why would she run???  Calling that ruthless just doesn't work for me.

    Obama's team tried to paint Hillary as a racist.  Now that is ruthless considering Senator Clinton had four decades of working with and for the minority communities to better their lives.  That kind of nastiness is the hallmark of the right wing but Obama got away with it.  

    So when you play the "ruthless" card, I react quite negatively.

    Parent

    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    they aren't racist, but they did use his race against him in the campaign.

    And he called them on it and went a bit further.

    It really was to be expected.

    Parent

    Hil's team did (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    pander to the racists, Obama's team pandered to the sexists.

    It was bad.

    Having McCain in the Whitehouse will be worse for both.

    Parent

    Don't accuse others of lying (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    when they are making a perfecting reasonable point.

    Not only do most Obama appearances closely resemble rock concerts, complete with screaming, fainting fans, but two of his most-touted appearances actually were rock concerts, Oregon and Germany.  And the next one is next week at 75000-seat Invesco field.  Sheesh, facts are your friend.

    Obama's taken 2 vacations since May -- one before the primaries were even over.  And we all know it.  It's not like it's up for debate whether he was in Hawaii for a week at the same time his polls were dropping.

    Parent

    saying he is MORE about those things (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    than governing was what I found misrepresentational.

    He was quite humble at the Saddleback forum and in his commercials.

    Parent

    That's not the really bad thing they did. (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    Much as I despise the Bush administration, I don't fault the Republicans for arguing that they were more "experienced" than Kerry. What else could they say? I fault them for suggesting that Kerry was a coward, didn't deserve his medals, lied about his service, wasn't patriotic....all that crap. I fault them for suggesting that if Kerry won the terrorists would win. And I think it is really wrong to even suggest that Hillary saying she was more experienced was anywhere in that league.

    Parent
    You don't fault them for (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    the terror alerts that came whenever Kerry's numbers were up?

    For Bush calling urgent press conferences on security then giving a stump speech?

    Scaring people is what they did, and it was so effective, that all Hil had to do was suggest that Obama couldn't protect our families to be effective.

    OTOH, all Obama had to do was say "oh she's likeable enough" etc, etc.

    Both of them used dogwhistles and subtle references to negative popular notions.

    I think the race was fine, actually. And I argue with Obama supporter and Clinton supporters. (What was NOT fine, was the media and their misogyny)

    Parent

    I said............. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    ...I don't fault them for saying they were more experienced than Kerry. I said no more than that. If you read my post and see support for their actual tactics then you are reading something into what I wrote that is clearly not there.

    Also, something that has bothered the h@ll out of me is that when Obama supporters equate what Hillary did in the primaries to what the Republicans did to Kerry or Gore, they are minimizing the sheer corruption and evilness of the Republicans. No wonder Obama supporters like Pelosi are going to let BushCo get away with all their crimes.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#163)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM EST
    Also, something that has bothered the h@ll out of me is that when Obama supporters equate what Hillary did in the primaries to what the Republicans did to Kerry or Gore, they are minimizing the sheer corruption and evilness of the Republicans.

    And I argued that very point over at dKos.

    However, that was also a tactic, and fair game.

    Parent

    see, this is an exercise in bad logic (4.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    that is really annoying.  And seems to be the sort of logic most Obama supporters learned -- from cable news?  in school?  I don't know where.

    Maria didn't say she admired them for any of the reasons you listed.  You are deliberately distorting what she did say, and seem to think you're quite clever for it.

    Parent

    Obama played plenty dirty, he needs the CLintons (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    he needs HILLARY Clinton who knows how to connect to voters.

    Parent
    I didn't say he didn't play dirty (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM EST
    I just said it's to be expected, and the Dems had better stop acting "above it all" and jump into the mud.

    Parent
    Your definition of what's "dirty" (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    is awful dainty, IMO.

    Parent
    I think the whole conversation about (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    'dirty' and 'ruthless' is valuable.  The media has for years, fostered the picture of the Clintons in perjorative ways and those words come into play often. My question is: Do they have valid reasons for using them and what examples could they give to support their use.  Bill did things as president that I didn't always agree with, but my picture was always that he worked for me and my interests and I saw evidence of it almost every week.  Why are the elitists of the Democratic party so angry at him?  Did he really play dirty or was he ruthless or is that what they said for other reasons?

    Parent
    the "elitists are not angry at them (none / 0) (#198)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    only those on the other side. Those on his side are quite happy with him.

    Parent
    He needs to talk to voters (none / 0) (#188)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    If by "above it all" you mean "above the voters" I couldn't agree more. He keeps talking strategy - I am going to hit back on McCain. He should not say this out loud. Just do it.

    Now how are you going to fix the economy? How are you going to deal with Putin?

    Parent

    In all sincerity, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by magisterludi on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    how exactly do they play dirty?

    Come to think of it, what winning politician has NOT been accused of playing dirty? How are the Clintons any different?

    Parent

    The problem is with the definition (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    of "dirty politics".  Obama's camp won't go for it and tell people the TRUTH about John McCain being a serial liar, an ultra conservative, a Bush on steriods and a short-tempered irrational lunatic.  They think that's "mean".  Meanwhile McNasty - his high school moniker - goes around making up lies and questioning Obama's patriotism.  Personally, I think they have every right and indeed a responsibility to set the record straight on John McCain - telling the truth isn't dirty politics - it is the truth.

    Parent
    And yet they had and have (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    no problem lying and calling the Clinton's racist.

    Why are they comfortable trashing the only successful dems in four decades, but uncomfortable with trashing the truly trashable right wing???

    I wish someone would explain this to me.

    Parent

    I will never understand it. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    I can't think of a single explanation that they could offer that would make that decision make sense to me.

    Parent
    If people (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    are willing to be totally honest, they would have to admit that Obama isn't politically ruthless, he's corrupt, and that's the big problem with him being in the Democratic camp.  And that's why he'll never be a Bill Clinton.

    Parent
    The crux of my argument: (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    Come to think of it, what winning politician has NOT been accused of playing dirty?

    I want to win.

    Parent

    Being accused of something (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by magisterludi on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    and actually doing something are two different things, of course. The GOP are so good at blurring the line that it becomes legend, and not just urban.

    For example, take the John Coles of this world. Please.

    Parent

    Bill Maher (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    Anderson Cooper, Ralph Nader, Tweety, Hannity, and on and on and on.
    and me.


    Tweety too? (none / 0) (#18)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    Don't watch him anymore so I do not know.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    I was shocked but last night he made a helluva convincing case with state charts and other visual aids for Hillary as VP.


    Parent
    Tweety (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    Isn't that the mother of all ironies?

    IMHO, he misses her.  He has nothing to obsess about now.  The man has a serious problem.

    I can hardly imagine how Hillary and Bill react when they hear what these guys are saying now.  I hope they something nerf to hurl at their TV like we do.  Otherwise, there'd be no screen intact left in their house, or ours.

    Parent

    Who knows if he misses her (none / 0) (#32)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    or not, but I'm sure Hillary is good for his ratings, and he and his producers definitely know that.

    He's just trying to make a buck.

    Parent

    OR he sees his guy going down (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    He made his choice and he does not like being wrong and losing. He choose Bush and pushed the having a beer poll. He was one of the first pushing the Swiftboating ads several times a night. Without them appearing on his show, most people in the rest of the country would have never seen them at all. I consider that free publicity and media interring with an election.

    Parent
    Well, you seem to think (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    he is driven by his need to be right.  I see him as being driven by his need to be watched.  He knows that having Hillary around for him to bash does wonders for his ratings, and for his noteriety generally.

    Parent
    On this specific issue I think (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    he is experiencing one of his rare moments of honest clarity.  One thing that he consistently praised Senator Clinton for during the primaries was her ability to get in there with working class voters and connect.  He cares about those voters - probably the only element of his early Democratic tutelage that still has not left him after all of the years of DC brain washing.  I think he understands how huge Obama's gap is in that arena and to his credit is willing to admit that Senator Clinton is gifted at connecting with that crowd.

    Parent
    I watched him when he was with Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:32:53 AM EST
    I was watching the day he walked up to Hillary to say hello. She greeted him with her charming way and he was gushing. He was giddy. He was looking around afterwards to see if anyone was watching who he was arm holding. He showed it on his show more than once. It was if she was the rock star and he had just scored a autograph. So ratings are a big driving force, but I also believe his ego plays into things.

    Parent
    But no (none / 0) (#121)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    tingle up his leg?

    Parent
    Also David Gergen (none / 0) (#23)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    What a pal, that Gergen n/t (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    I watched him for years (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    Even when I was for Edwards, I did not like the tacky things said about Hillary. That is when I stopped watching him. And he liked Edwards too. I didn't throw spit balls at him. I just chose to turn him off. It was very easy along with MSNBC. I would rather read CNN.com than watch it. Bill is smart and can be funny but he is usually more right on when with Larry. My brother always says why can't he be that way on his own show?

    BTD, you are pouring salt into my wounds this AM (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:47:42 AM EST


    Ugh. Anyone who dated Ann Coulter (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    ought not dare to say the name of Hillary Clinton.

    Maher became a buffoon long ago.  He had promise, but he squandered it.

    Whoa...he dated HER? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    I take back my praise of him. BTW though many people on this site have cozied up to rethugs recently, so maybe he's not all that bad. Hmmmm...

    Parent
    You didn't (none / 0) (#180)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    know Bill Maher and Ann Coulter were (and maybe are) a hot item?  That's why he would have her on his show and he would warn the audience beforehand that she is a special friend and not to be rude to her!  BTW, what ever happened to mAnn Coulter?

    Parent
    Well it's too bad (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    that he spent the primary season ridiculing the Clintons.

    Oh, now he comes out and makes some damn sense, along with others, who did their best to destroy the Clinton legacy.

    Even though he's right, I have no respect for him for saying this.  Let me hear him talk about how he played the game for the last year like all the other media did, and how wrong he was.  Then maybe I'd have an ounce of respect.

    Too damn little, too damn late.

    Actually, around Ohio he started to see (none / 0) (#43)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    enthusiasm for her. He asked Matt Taibbi (paraphrase) "wait a minute, that clip you just played had enthusiastic support for Hillary we haven't seen before" and was about to ask more but Taibbi just reverted to more Hillary-bashing.

    Parent
    Maher is an entertainer. (none / 0) (#74)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    Can we forgive him if he is now thinking that maybe -- just maybe -- he and his fellow CDS sufferers (including many in the DNC) have maneuvered the Democratic party into a fubar general election scenario?

    Parent
    His long-time sexism is not forgivable to me (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    or his overt (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    homophobia

    Parent
    but but (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    the great sage Michael Moore said he should pick Carolyn Kennedy.

    pfft

    Oh THAT's what he was blathering on about (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    in my e-mail.

    God. He is out-of-touch with politics.

    He's great with going after corporations and politicians, not so good at how change actually occurs.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    she does appear tougher than him.


    Parent
    nothing against her (none / 0) (#39)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    I just think Obama needs to be grounded with someone who knows the game better (like Hil)

    Parent
    I think it would be an insanely suicidal choice (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    just pointing out that she has thicker wrists than he does.

    Parent
    what a crappy misogynous comment (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    actually I was insulting him (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    not her.  her wrists are quite fetching and, um, normal.


    Parent
    Then it's homophobic (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    What a jerk.

    Parent
    you do know that Im gay right? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    No, and I still don't (none / 0) (#117)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    and if you are you should know better.

    Parent
    look (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    you seem to have a problem with thin wrists.
    Obama has extremely thin wrists.  this is not a sexist or homophobic statement.
    it is a true statement.  he has laughably thin wrists.
    someone was talking about him wielding sledgehammer in some other thread.
    it doesnt look like he could pick one up without breaking both wrists.
    Im sorry if this is difficult for you to hear.


    Parent
    I acknowledge that (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    people come in all shapes and sizes. Unless you live under a rock, you realize that narrow wrists on a man are considered effeminate by the neanderthals among us.

    Either you are such a neanderthal, or you are pandering to them.

    Own it.

    Parent

    ah (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    the smooth move from "anything unflattering is racist" to "anything unflattering is homophobic".
    got it.
    btw
    I love being called homophobic.  its one I have gotten.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    its one I have NOT gotten.
    but plan to cut and paste and keep forever.

    Parent
    poor thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    difficult to be called on you prejudices.

    But be my guest and enjoy. Especially since I never called you a racist.

    Parent

    2004 (none / 0) (#184)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    Moore thought Oprah should be prez.  Pretty much happened this year.

    Parent
    and Voters are supposed (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    to just forget what Obama did to the Clintons in SC and afterward?  Forget everything they've heard from every Obama Surrogate and Media shill over the past six months or so?  Ignore the fact that she is MUCH more experienced than he is and Voters shouted loud and clear from March onward that Hillary was the choice and not Obama?

    It'd be hard to rebuild that burned and smoldering bridge in light of how poorly the Clintons have been treated on this very public stage with much of the Country keenly aware of it and, according to his softening support in the Polls, still not forgiving the Dems and the DNC.

    forget? (none / 0) (#28)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    most voters did not even know about it.

    Parent
    forget? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    people were dumb enough to re-elect BUSH... You think they will remember how Hillary was treated in a primary that was over months ago.

    the only people who keep beating this HILLARY WAS SO MISTREATED drum... were never going to vote obama anyway...and will use to that as a reason... thats my opinion

    Parent

    You are wrong (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    I would have voted for BO back in January 2008.  The primaries opened my eyes to the man (I new he had nothing to run on).  That's when I saw that he lacked all sense of integrity.  I will not vote for him now if he ran against Bush.  I'd stay home.

    Parent
    Um, no (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    Lots of us will remember how Hillary was treated in the primary because it was DISGUSTING AND VICIOUS.

    And your second paragraph is dead wrong. Many of us will vote for not-McCain because he is not-McCain, but we are also capable of simultaneously holding the honest opinion that Hillary was mistreated in a most vile way.

    Stop trivializing what was done to her and her supporters and you may get more supporters for your candidate.

    Parent

    heh, I like that: voting for not-McCain (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    maybe that should be the campaign slogan. snark. well, maybe snark. Ah, this is soooo borning. Especially if Obama picks one of the boys....

    Parent
    Plenty of not-McCain candidates (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    to vote for. Doesn't have to be Obama.

    Parent
    And may I add (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    For a lot of women voting for Obama -- who actively and passively benefited from the misogyny spewed at HRC & her supporters -- is the same as condoning that behavior.
    And lest anyone think I'm advocating "cutting off my nose to spite my face" I'm NOT -- my face is the face of a woman -- the fact that getting Obama elected may be better for the white males in this country does not equate to him being better for the women -- especially when I'm already being told (in not so many words)to focus on the bigger picture of getting Obama elected and then, down the line, we'll take care of those pesky women's issues you seem concerned with, promise.

    Parent
    angie... (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    And I respect that vote choice completely.

    Parent
    Has (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    anyone else thought about the fact that instead of maybe trying to get someone else, Hillary or another VP candidate, to solve Obama's electoral problems instead we should figure out a way to dump Obama as the nominee? Sorry, but when a party is going into an election with a candidate that they know is likely to lose it doesn't look too smart to continue on that path unless they have no other choice.

    If he picks Hillary this late in the game (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    it looks like a desperate reaction. I don't think she can save him at this point.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    I'm talking about making Hillary the nominee or coming up with a compromise candidate.

    Parent
    He could save face by suggesting he be veep (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    and she be the nominee. Make it look like his decision.

    Parent
    And lose the AA vote (none / 0) (#178)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    for the Party for years to come?

    Not. Gonna. Happen.

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    or put up an AA candidate so inept that AA's will not vote for the party in the future either.

    Lose/lose proposition I guess.

    Parent

    late? (none / 0) (#52)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    umm when does he suppoose to pick a VP?   isnt this right about when most nominees do it? right before the Convention?  how is that desperate?  explain?

    If he picked her too early he was going to be called WEAK?


    Parent

    He didn't take charge of this (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    he was backed into it. Just like the roll-call vote. Gergen even said he was sloppy in handling the roll-call vote. Had he come out early in favor of the roll-call vote, he would have looked strong.

    Parent
    Usually when the nominee has (none / 0) (#174)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    all of the votes in place.  As I recall, Obama still hasn't had the vote and this has been close. In the past when competing candidates have had 4-600 votes at a maximum, there was no chance that the nomination wasn't wrapped up.  This race is different.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    huh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    so the DNC who stole the election from HILLARY  did so to Get McCain elected?

    i am glad people can seperate opinion from fact in most cases

    Parent

    No, (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    that wasn't my point. My point is that since is obvious that Obama is unlikely to win in Nov, perhaps we should find another nominee instead of going with a likely loss. Do it at the convention.

    Parent
    BO didn't steal the election (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    BO gamed a broken system.

    Parent
    to be fair, Hil tried to do the same (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    and failed.

    Parent
    front pages attest to Obama as being ruthless. (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by S Brennan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    Look anybody who has gotten as far and as fast as Obama without a trace of achievement can be presumed to be ruthless.  The fact that Barak's opponents have had their sexual indiscretions splashed across the front pages attest to Obama as being ruthless.

    That's not the problem Maher.

    The problem is Obama is kiss up - kick down kinda guy...and that's what we have in the white house now.  Do you like that?  How about this:

    Barak Obama is now:

    Pro-Iraq war [wants generals to tell him what to do next in Iraq...uh, words fail me].

    Anti-choice [wants priests and boyfriends in on the decision...uh, never mind].

    Pro-Death penalty enlargement [Death penalty...it's not just for murderers anymore].

    Anti-Mideast Peace [having taken a stance that's as hard-line as any Lukid party member in Israel]

    Pro-Telecom immunity [what's a little lawbreaking on a national scale when it comes to potential donors?]

    Anti-gun control [yep, that's what I want,  Scalia, a guy who hangs with Dick Cheney, reviewing every gun control law]

    Pro Government involvement with religion [for a "constitutional professor" that's ground breaking]

    Anti-public campaign financing [what's the point of letting the Teleco's off if you can't get paid for it?]

    This country needs to do a U-turn and head back to what worked for decades.

    FDR style governance, the Republicans embraced it for over 40 years because it worked.  We hit a rough patch in the 70's and we threw out the most successful system we ever had.

    Bill Maher was at least (5.00 / 11) (#38)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    honest enough to say what a lot of the "boys of the pundit class" think.  He basically said, "Yea, I like Obama and he's cool and all...."
    Now he's finally added a "BUT".....
    Seriously, I think Obama is the "cool" guy to many of them.  He's the intellect they are not, the one with athletic abilities ....it's the definition of "cool."

    It was up front and clear back in 2000.  Matthews practically DROOLED over Bill Bradly because Bill was an NBA guy.  I swear to heaven if these pathetic wannabbees in our society, the guys who never outgrow their hero worship of hip types, continue to dominate the press and government we are in trouble.

    I could see it way back with Obama.  The "he's so cool" meme running through the press.  It's the 2008 version of "he's the kind of guy you want to have a beer with...."  
    Yes, I know the guys like to all say how Barack is an intellectual.  But HE PLAYS BASKETBALL....isn't that cool? (rolls eyes).

    Older women are never "cool" with men, not young men and not old men. But being cool is not what a candidate should be.  And I know not ALL men think this way but many of you here know what I mean.
    The pundit class is all about being "in", being rich, being cool.  Al Gore was made fun of because of his intellect and when he let advisers advise him as how to look "cool" he was the butt of the pundit class (do those guys ever look in the mirror????).

    Women, especially women over a certain age, are never cool.  Younger they can be HOT, or sexy or even "animals" if they are athletic which can make them cool for a bit.   But never cool if you are over 40.

    Hillary is a tougher fighter than Bill or Obama because she WORKS harder than them, can multitask  like most women, and is about getting the job done, instead of getting her ego stroked. But she's not hip or cool.

    It has been clear to me for a long time. The pundit class needs "cool."  The elite class wants someone they can mold.  Hillary is neither.
    Sad for our country.    

    Hil is cool for many of us. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    a good portion of 1/2 the population.

    We just aren't so obnoxious about it (in general)

    Parent

    Not just men (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Plenty of women will go with the perceived "cooler" candidate too.

    Parent
    Sadly I think you are right (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    but, in my experience, it is more characteristic of younger women.  Sad, because it means us older women failed at teaching our daughters and granddaughters to be good at judging what is important.

    Parent
    Now he wants Hillary. That's rich. (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    Yes, I think it is a trend. Well, there's the core CDS Obama supporters that will never admit anything like that (hands over ears, la la la la la). But everyone with a brain is waking up to that. And of course the irony of these Hillary haters wanting the Clintons because, well, they'd actually like to win is amuuuusing. :-)


    That's the attitude. (none / 0) (#65)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    "were all in this together"

    Ugh. how petty.

    Parent

    Maher is the petty hypocrite in this situation (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    I am sick of all this bullsh*t (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:41:33 AM EST
    infighting. Peole need to get practical on both sides. This destroys us every time, because we reserve our racour for each other and are spent before we get to the GOP.

    Then we are stuck complaining about losing our rights for 4 more years.

    Rinse and repeat.

    8 years of Clinton is all we have had since 1980.

    I want more power for our side, i want it bad enough to forget about the Hil nutcrackers and the Obama sock monkeys. The GOP LOVES it when we fight each other.

    Parent

    Well, if you're sick of infighting (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    then I suggest that you don't call people petty when they point out sexism towards people running for office, and maybe you'll get further in your goal of stopping the infighting.

    You're free to forget about the Hil nutrackers, I won't be able to. But I especially won't be able to forget that lots of DEMOCRATS didn't speak out against the nutcrackers and everything else she endured.

    Despite that, I am choking back my anger and voting for not-McCain. So go talk to someone else who joins you in the sexism denial game, because the more I hear it the harder it is to choke.

    Parent

    I am not denying the sexism. (none / 0) (#148)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    Where do you get that notion?

    Parent
    Gee I can't imagine where I got it from (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    Done here. You can go back to calling Capt names now.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#192)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    so you think Obama should be criticized because he has narrow wrists?

    Really?

    Unbelievable.

    I thought you were pretty reasonable.

    Parent

    Capt is not a 'neanderthal' nor a 'jerk' (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    That's all.

    Parent
    well his comment was. (none / 0) (#201)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    Well maybe you (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    need to get yourself to a few other blogs where sexism, misogyny and CDS are still the MO of the bloggers and talk to them about what they are doing to unify democrats.  
    You see, when people like me see it is more important to the Obama campaign to pander to the religious right (Saddleback); more important to show admiration for Reagan (one of the worst presidents for anyone who believes in democracy and the right to demand fair and decent compensation for work); more important to ignore or trash the only two term democratic president's accomplishments then I wonder why I should work for this campaign.  Unity means BOTH camps matter.  

    I will never vote for McCain. I most likely will vote for a straight democratic ticket but I will not work for a campaign or candidate who still disses and insults me.

    Parent

    I still go to dKos. (none / 0) (#172)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    I know it's there. And they tell me the other side, how Obama is the victim.

    I know that Hil-hate was worse in the media, but I don't think it was worse in the Obama camp.


    Parent

    It's not that it was worse (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    or better in any camp.  In any election it is going to be that blame game...I get that.
    What I don't get, what I did not, cannot accept is the democratic leadership, from Dean to Brazille to Kennedy to Kerry to Daschle were totally silent about the media's misogyny and sexism.  

    I could tolerate (well, I spoke against it on dkos but I get that bloggers are citizens with passionate opinions but their impact is minimal when it comes to the masses) somewhat that dkos and Huffpo gave support to MSNBC and some actually cheered the misogyny from them.  They are NOT the party.  But when the democratic leaders sat silent about the rampant sexism from the media, I was and remain livid.
    If the pundit class used even one tenth the amount of racism as they used sexism, the democratic party would have been out in force.  While one of their own was trashed and insulted on air, they were silent.  That spoke volumes to me.

    Parent

    Yes. I agree with you on that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    100% about the Dem leadership.

    And Obama could have spoken out about it too. But that would have been extrordinary.

    Parent

    there are Obama (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    sock monkeys?


    Parent
    Unfortunately, yes. (none / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    link? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    I saw it on either MSNBC or (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:52:41 AM EST
    CNN.

    Earlier this summer.

    Knock yourself out.

    Parent

    found it (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    it seems to have been, rightly,  yanked from availability.  unlike the Clinton nutcracker which is still available everywhere apparently.

    Parent
    the nutcracker I have actually seen for (none / 0) (#169)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:02:23 PM EST
    sale in a store.

    Gross.

    Parent

    If and When Obama loses this election could (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by athyrio on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    someone please explain to me how to get rid of the "powers that be" that moved the party to Chicago area and how do we get fairness back into our primary process for all concerned....Like getting rid of caucauses!!!!!

    ha, you'd like to think they'd get the message (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    but very good point. Obama loosing because enough dems don't vote for him probably in itself wouldn't send a message to the DNC. They're clearly not that smart. Even with letters and calls telling them why people are voting that way. No, I think more would have to be done. Say like the same people not voting for SD's that backed Obama. Clean, simple, and succinct. It's there job to pick someone who can win and (if he looses) they failed. So they should lose their job. If he looses, that could be the most constructive thing PUMA and organizations like them could do: Make a big public face to list the SD's that are responsible and run a big campaign to clean house.

    Of course if he wins, I guess we have a new dem party, and those old coalitions really are broken and all those people really aren't needed in the party. You never know.

    Parent

    Why Obama needs Hillary has...... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    ...as much to do with governing as with winning. I know that seems counterintuitive on many levels but Obama needs to do more than just eke out a slim victory. He needs to win convincingly or there will be gridlock. Hillary will help him do that. If he just squeaks out a victory over the hapless McCain there will be ZERO honeymoon period for his administration. The Republicans will be going at him with everything they've got to weaken the Dems for 2012. Since he is not all that experienced (this is the truth, I don't mean it as a bash) he needs that honeymoon period so as to get his presidential "bearings." Bill Clinton didn't have it and barely survived the disasters of his first time and he's a tough bird. W didn't have it and would have surely been a one-timer had the Republicans not managed to manipulate the electorate after 9/11.

    A candidate that needs a VP (4.66 / 3) (#100)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    to help him govern should not be a candidate.  Many voted for Bush because he had Cheney.  The president should be competent on his own. The voters have that right.  I'm voting for McCain because it's all that's left that's not BO.

    Parent
    He doesn't need her to govern (none / 0) (#114)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    but she would be an awesome addition

    Parent
    He doesn't? (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    You mean because he has Kerry, Daschle and Kennedy who will make all the hiring decisions and 'own' the president they invented?

    Governing is choosing...deciding...selecting.

    Obama knows no one.  The Clintons know everyone and that is part of the problem.  They know who did their job and who didn't...who can be relied on and who can't...who is a patronage fool and who is competent.  

    And that's a big piece of what you need to know to govern well.  What the Clintons learned from their experience is valuable to governance.

    Obama?  Lotsa luck.

    Parent

    Ya think (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salt on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST

    ....Bill Clinton is still the only guy in that party who really knows how to do this, as far as talking to the American people,...

    That should be the majority of the American People that vote Bill. And it's also why Obama is tanking in the polls with his negatives rising, and if Clinton is not his VP will have IMO a significant de bounce with the Party diehards fleeing on such a poor decision for our Country.  It's still and will always remain that the Clinton attacks highlighted for many Dems and Independents Obama's true inexperience, bad judgment, and a view that he is untrustworthy truly willing to do and say anything to get elected no matter how low the road.. We out here in voter land were dumbfounded when Obama judged the ONLY TWO term Democratic President, the hated enemy of the Right for his very successes for our country, during whose Presidency we all prospered not just some, to be such an insert your chosen Clyburn grievance or sub standard to Regan.  Now know I do not want Hillary as VP, she should not iron Obama and the DNC's shirt, there is such a thing as  winning ugly, TOO ugly, and those who weild thses politics of hate should fail as they are unworthy.

    BO called him racist (none / 0) (#102)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    Correction BO did not call him racist (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    But BO's camp used the race card against Bill and BO did nothing to correct the slime.

    Parent
    linkage? (none / 0) (#112)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:39:34 AM EST
    you know i never seen a link with a name of a key person in the OBAMA camp that on record said Bill was Racist.

    if there is one   i would like to read it

    that said  what BILL said in SC was stupid.

    Parent

    if it was stupid is arguable (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    was it true?


    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#137)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:49:28 AM EST
    Jackson won SC in 84 and 88... but lost the primary

    Obama won SC   and won the nominaton.

    What i took from it was BILL was saying that a former black candidate won SC and it didn't mean anything then and it wont mean anything now.

    that said  Bill Clinton is considered a  Honorary black person.  so i can see how he was hurt be labeled a racist.  Because he isnt...  he just shouldnt have said that in that context.

    Parent

    he never said he lost the primary (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    Michelle implied it (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    to a crowd right after Bill Clinton was on Bill Moyers.  BC basically said that Obama's version of his stance on Iraq in 2004 was a fairy tale (imlying Obama was spinning what he said).  

    Michelle Obama, with the help of the pundit class, insisted Bill was saying in code that a black man being the president of the US was a fairy tale. Even when Hillary pointed it out to Russert and insisted Tim play the whole clip of what Bill said, it made no difference.

    Parent

    Do you suppose (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    that Hillary has already said no?

    Just like Rendell did, Warner did, Strickland did, Webb did.

    Who wants to be saddled with this guy?

    Too bad I never (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:49:01 AM EST
    paid attention to the whole VP process in other elections.  Is all this "Just say no." normal or what?  It this draaaaaaawing out the process par for the course or not?

    Parent
    I hightly doubt it. (none / 0) (#116)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    WELL (none / 0) (#118)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    well if he offered and she declined she needs to make that public so some of her more whiney supporters will feel better.

    Parent
    And make him look bad? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:35 AM EST
    Then she'd be blamed for making him lose.

    Parent
    Obama is calling the shots (none / 0) (#167)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    and Hillary is following his direction.  He told them all to stay quiet about this VP selection, and she is doing so.

    So do you want her to work with the Obama campaign and do as he wishes, or to come out and make some statements against their will?

    Which is it?

    Parent

    Well, I for one do not want her (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by miriam on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    to work with Obama's campaign.  I want this DNC dead and gone.  My most serious outrage is aimed at this bunch with more than honorable mention due Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile.  They did not lift one voice or one finger when the most vile mysogynism was being directed at a DEMOCRATIC candidate.  They all fawned on the empty Obama as if he were the Second Coming.  By remaining silent on the media's Neanderthal behavior they encouraged the trashing of our most recent sucessful president.  They endangered the country by enabling the worst president ever, and by reneging on their 2006 campaign promises they may well have endangered our current congressional candidates, too.  They helped shred the Constitution; Impeachment Off The Table and FISA indeed!  And for all of that they deserve more than outrage; they deserve swift and unceremonial dumping on the trash pile of history.


    Parent
    I thnk this is at least a part of what was (none / 0) (#152)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    discussed at Dianne Feinstein's house.

    Parent
    OT: (none / 0) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    Feinstein - who won't be at the convention because she fell and broke her foot.

    LINK

    Parent

    Thanks for the Feinstein link. (none / 0) (#189)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    Whether it's true or not, did you read some of the vicious comments attached to the article?

    I still think the VP issue was decided between O and Hillary when they met at Feinstein's house in DC.

    Parent

    epitome of sexism (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    would be Hillary as VP. The majority of women who have made it in to executive levels, and many women in other areas as well, have experienced this sort of thing. The better choice women is passed up for a less capable man. But then when the man is floundering and the company (or party or whatever) is suffering, then the more capable women is given the number 2 position to save the day. And being good corp citizens (or party member, or whatever) they usually comply. It's sickening. And the only way for it to stop is for those women to say no. "No I won't save the company. You chose to make it fail when you picked him. You will continue to pick failures like that if I (or others like me) bail you out." It's time to say no.

    If Hillary is asked by Obama to be VP. I really hope she says no. An interesting question is, if he asks and she says no, will we ever find out about that? Because it would be an ego bruise for Obama to admit it.

    Bill Maher (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Bourges on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    and his ilk who have done nothing but savage Hillary and Bill Clinton cannot, even now, state the obvious without adding an insult. He has lost all credibility.  Nonetheless, he is right on one point. Obama needs Hillary because she can -- guess what? -- inspire and touch people while at the same time show the strength and the experience the Democrats need to win.

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    for PRESIDENT!  Not VP.  

    Now Maher changes his tune on the Clintons.  At least one of our Obama friends drank the Kool-aid directly from Bill Maher.  This guy didn't like Obama until Maher started touting him every night (he's a Bill Maher devotee).  The guy HATES Hillary because Maher hated her.  Wonder how his endorsement of the Clintons now will go down with the audience.

    Maybe the frenzied Obama people are starting to see they've created a monster.

    She has it all (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by chopper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    If Obama is stupid enough to choose anyone other than Hillary, he is sealing his fate - loser.

    It would be a stab in the back not only to Hillary, but also to her voters, most of the 18 Million.

    He cannot come up with a substitute for Hillary.  There is none.

    There is not one person who has been mentioned as a possibility, man or woman, who stacks up to Hillary.

    She has it all - experience, knowledge, intelligence, maturity, good judgement, competence, record of accomplishments, worldliness, the winner of the big important states, and the winner of the People's Votes.

    If you don't count the caucus delegates he stole with the help of his thugs she won the delegates, too.

    She also brings the hope of another 8 years of Peace and Prosperity, and the hope for another Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    What an unbelievable sexist this man has always (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    been and still is.  Yeah, they need Bill.  

    Bill Maher is one of (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    the smartest political/social commentators today. He said a lot of things last night that were dead on the money about the race, that ODS and CDS victims would find disturbing but true.

    Well, he sure was wrong during the entire (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    primary, and his comments on LK proved it. He showed nothing but disdain for everything Hillary Clinton during the entire primary. Where did all that glowing praise for Obama go last night?

    Every now and then he shows some political intelligence....doesn't make him a great analyst.

    Parent

    Bill Maher is (4.66 / 3) (#176)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    a poster boy of misogynism.

    Parent
    I beg to differ (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    He believes that prescription drugs are just plain bad.  Tell that to folks who've had their cancer cured. etc. etc.

    And people wouldn't get sick if they weren't fat.

    He's just a nut.  He's a leftie nut, but a nut none-the-less.  Yes, he drives a hybrid, but he dated Ann Coulter.  And he had Mr. F*ck on his show every night, a plain idiot. (can't remember the guy's name but he used the word f*ck so frequently, that was my name for him).

    Parent

    I believe he claims to be (none / 0) (#203)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    a Libertarian.

    Parent
    What else? (none / 0) (#44)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    For we who didn't watch.

    Parent
    CDS & ODS` (none / 0) (#58)
    by gaf on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    What is CDS & ODS?

    Parent
    Clinton derangement syndrome (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    and Obama DS

    Parent
    God I hope so. (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    I think Obama/Clinton is the one bumper sticker I would buy.

    John Nichols too (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    Local radio, a monent ago,with rabid Hillaryhater "Sly," who's "I'm getting to where I could live with it."

    I'm in the same place as Sly, mostly because I'm  not hearing any other names that make me feel any better.

    If you've been like the others (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    bashing Hillary and now calling for her to be the VP, then you owe her a BIG GD apology first.

    I say this as an ally, someone who hung out with you at NN08 in Austin a couple times.  If I had known your position then, I would have said it to your face too.

    Do the right thing.  Give her the respect she deserves.  And encourage your friends to do the same.  That's the first step to setting things straight in this party.  And, call out loudly for her to be chosen as VP while there still might be time.  I know you are a person who is not afraid to speak out for what's right.  We all know your history and your reputation.  Take the lead.

    Parent

    i'd like to think (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    i criticized, not bashed, tho there were a few posts I went over the top.

    My problems originated with Bill, Hillary never convinced me she'd have been better in those policy areas.

    On PATRIOT, I knocked O,S, and E equally. My Primary vote went to Gravel. Might have gone Dodd if he'd still been in it. Once Feingold passed on a race, I was not going to get real excited about any of the declared candidates.

    "Respect she deserves..." As a Senator, I'll be generous and call the record average of a disappointing lot. The videogame ban pander leaves a lingering bad taste. Sorry.

    Parent

    How about Obama step down to be veep (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    Here's the thing: even with Hillary as veep, I am still extremely nervous about Obama talking with Putin. He is too soft and too naive (in my view.) He is very trusting. And he won't listen to Hillary.

    Parent
    That would look really, really, really (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    bad.  It might be the right thing to do, but it would be an impossible feat to turn around all of the negative publicity that that kind of shift would cause between now and the election.  There would be no way to recover from that - it would confuse voters all over the place and really make us look incompetent as a party.

    Parent
    Sadly (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    # really make us look incompetent as a party

    THAT boat has already sailed, my friend.

    Parent

    I agree, but there is no need to (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    add insult to injury here if it isn't going to get us any closer to the goal.  If I thought it might be a risk that could be overcome, I'd probably be all for it - but I don't see a way to pull it off in the short amount of time we have between the convention and the election.

    Parent
    The Democrats (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    are incompetent as a party, or they wouldn't be in this frigging mess to start with.

    Parent
    amen that (none / 0) (#200)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Looking presidential... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    My wife and I were watching him a couple days ago and tried to imagine him on the "world stage" as president. The whole Europe thing didn't do it for us and it has nothing to do with race. It's about this person.

    Parent
    RACE (none / 0) (#164)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    believe me  right now  OBAMA being black is costing him atleast 7 - 8 points in the polls.... don't underestimate the amount of people who preach Obama can't even tie his shoes arent basing that on one thing...color.

    now how large that group is?..who knows

    Parent

    And Hillary being a woman (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    would cost her the same amount.  Those people, or should I say those kind of people, the ones who judge on race, gender, sexual preference, or religious affiliation, were never going to vote for a democrat anyway.

    Please stop with the race baiting here.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    this is rich. We all heard during the primaries that "those people" wouldn't vote for any Democrat so now you're saying that there's a large group of swing voters who won't vote for Obama based on his race?

    Parent
    in my view (none / 0) (#106)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    i am glad u said IN MY VIEW.... Obama is a slick Chicago cut throat...as Putin will find out when he knocks out McCain in Nov.

    Parent
    "Could it be a trend" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    I definitely think it could.
    and I really really think he is going to follow the great United States tradition of doing the right thing, after trying everything else.

    Maher shouldn't give up on the Biden idea (none / 0) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Hillary may be ruthless, but she's compassionate - something Obama seems to lack (or appears to lack). But since it's looking more like Kaine or Biden, I think we are in for a treat with three months of stuff like this:

    (From Jonah Goldberg, who, yes, is a tool (forgive me), on The Corner)

    Biden's Mouth   [Jonah Goldberg]

    I for one would love, love, love to see Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. I think Ramesh merely scratched the surface when he said it would be something like an all-talk ticket. I think people would listen to Biden's gassbaggery and suddenly realize that the differences between the two men are very small indeed. It's sort of like when you're not sure if someone is a b.s. artist, or an ass, or a racist or whatever until you meet his wingman and that guy turns out to be much worse -- but also substantively the same. Birds of a feather and all that. I think Biden is such a yakker it would confirm that Obama is pretty much all-yackety-yak too.

    Just look through Jim Geraghty's piece on Biden's pie-hole and you'll get a sense of what I mean, as if you needed that sense.

    One small criticism of Jim's article though: he left out this bit on Indian-Americans, which would particularly come up if McCain picked a certain Louisiana governor.  



    cmon now (none / 0) (#204)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    i know people who said they would never vote a black man for president under any cirumcstances.

    I actually know this college work-study kid at my job who told me her told her dad said he would take her out the will if she voted OBAMA.

    please lets not pretend there are not a segment of DEMO's and INDIES  who wont vote for anything other than WHITE.  How large that segment is..is unknown.

    thats not race baiting   thats fact.  

    FLIP-FLOP your name is Bill Maher (none / 0) (#207)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    How often has Bill Maher been wrong in the past? And I mean really wrong? Lets count the pair of legs of the largest centipede incl. the poisoned fangs ;-)

    Another deja vu: After devoting the last season of Real Time to Obama propaganda (he even hired  Obamafanatic Matt Taibbi to educate the audience in Obama love), Bill Maher took a break from fawning over Obama and saw the light ... Obama is not the liberal champion he thought he was.

    Aawwwww .... ;-((

    And then this other bit of Bill Maher wisdom: "...but you know what? I think they need the Clinton ruthlessness onboard. I really do. ..."

    Ruthlessness of the Clintons? Bill Maher, where have you been? After witnessing the primaries one can only say - again - when one hears nonsense like this:

    Calgon, take me away!

    Hillary, come on... (none / 0) (#208)
    by scdemocrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    I just don't see why anyone likes Hillary. I like Bill, but not his ol' lady. However, if she ends up being his VP running mate, I'll still vote for him.

    Democrat Blog