I'll wait and see what happens in the next few months to decide which one is too hard to do.

You mean to decide the case that overturns Roe v. Wade?
Oh, nevermind, you clearly mean the case for preemptively bombing Iran!

Er, was it the case for continuing an abyssmal economic policy all whilst grinning and telling us dumb plebs that clubbing some fucking baby seals in ANWR is the cure-all for our energy woes?

I'm sorry! It must be the case for a thorougly unprincipled GOP puppet and his masters (of course) to install a minimum of two justices to the highest court of the land.

If, at this point and as other far brigher posters have noted, one's still going to act as if one isn't sure which candidate to back in the General Election, then the onus is on such person to illustrate that they're not just some pathetic GOP sub-operative enacting some politically retarded fantasy at the expense of real dicourse. Shorter version: you're either a lousy Democrat or a lousy liar. That said, you could be both. But I'm trying to be generous here.

Posted at June 10, 2008 1:18 AM in response to TWO MONKS AND THE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN

Hey Dirk, this is OT but did you happen to see your manly mug plastered on the google news front page a couple days back? Under the POLITICS sub-heading, your TPM avatar was placed next to something Obama-related for, oh, a good 36 hours or so.

I meant to post about it separately, but here ya go. Bravo!

Posted at June 6, 2008 7:48 PM in response to Obama's Veep-Hunting Team Gears Up

* do = to

Posted at June 2, 2008 7:35 PM in response to Clyburn Finally Makes It Official: He's Backing Obama

Here's the funny thing: it's theoretically impossible do discern if this was posted by an HRC die-harder or a GOP moron. Here's the terrifying thing: that's equally true for most of the slime I've seen posted on her behalf since, well, O locked this up with eleven straight victories.

I have the imagine that one benefit of locking up the nomination is that the GOP trolls will be forced to show their true colors. Finally.

On to November.

Posted at June 2, 2008 7:34 PM in response to Clyburn Finally Makes It Official: He's Backing Obama

The only thing deliberately obtuse around here is you: that and your blind support for whatever crap spills out of Camp Clinton. If you don't at least understand why most Democrats would find the reference odious, then you're either a GOP plant or completely brainwashed.

But have at the Kool-Aid references. Assuming projection will help sleep through the night, that is.

Posted at May 24, 2008 1:53 AM in response to Hillary Melt Down means no VP

I hope you're kidding

Actually, apllying said Razor could yield a handful of arguably equally plausible explanations for Senator Clinton's (at best) insensitive remarks, Insofar as she's made similar comments multiple times in public fora.

The point nonetheless stands that raising the specter of assassination (as Olbermann put it so virulently yet so rightly tonight), in light of BOTH her and Senator Obama's historic (and hence demonstrably dangerous) candidacies AND the Kennedy family's wincingly recent brush with (further) tragedy, is simply unforgivable. I can't even begin to summon the words to describe it in the (to me, unlikely) event she spoke with malicious and/or crassly utilitarian intent!

I can only hope this egregious breach of party etiquette -- nay, simply human decency -- will help in separating the McCain/GOP trolls from the actual, ardent Clinton diehards. Because if you're a paid hack, there's a handful of (admittedly specious) rationalizations you can concoct to explain away, if not fully justify, this behavior. But if you're a Democrat, or rather, a liberal/progressive/whatever citizen with any civic sense whatsoever, you'll find it awfully hard to spin this away.

It's karma. Not terribly instant, but awfully appropriate. Just awful.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:57 PM in response to Hillary Melt Down means no VP

Are you still (really) here? I thought you were Canadian and all. Which is sweet and all, but why go through all the extra-legal effort of throwing your counterproductive weight behind the loser? What, praytell, is your stake in all this? Assuming you're not a paid troll (being generous and all), why not get behind the presumptive nominee with (to be fair) a brain and a documented commitment to upholding womens' reproductive rights?

Two options, friend: you're either a GOP shill or a deluded Hillarite. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter, what gives? Grow up, move on or get real. Those are your options, friend. Which will it be?

Posted at May 18, 2008 8:56 PM in response to Obama To Spend Tuesday Night In Key Swing State, Away From The Day's Primaries

Shh, now. We all know Gore won. But your point stands :)

Posted at May 14, 2008 9:15 PM in response to In Speech Endorsing Obama, Edwards Offers Effusive Praise Of Hillary

So who is the real phony?

Too easy.
Toooooo easy.

Which Hillary are you backing, sir/madam, the one who helped push NAFTA through and now lies about it OR the one who employed to the tune of millions as her chief frickin' strategist a corporate lobbyist currently helping push through a similar agreement with labor-murdering Colombia?

You really want to play the authenticity game?

Posted at May 14, 2008 9:14 PM in response to In Speech Endorsing Obama, Edwards Offers Effusive Praise Of Hillary

Um, I thought I indicated that my above post was in repsponse to:

Like Obama in North Carolina. It will be a bloodlet.
Posted by "Present"

Just to be clear. Since 5x1=1+0 according to HillaryMath(TM).
Carry on.

Posted at May 13, 2008 12:24 AM in response to Obama Campaign Seeking Staff For General Election