Their Next Campaign Missive: "Ride, ride, ride, hitchin' a ride"?
Today's campaign e-mail from the Nader crew carried the subject line: "We Need Gas Money." That was clever and cute... even though I hope he has to walk....more »
Posted on April 23, 2008 8:56 PM
Obama Says NO to NC Debate, So How About a NEW Format?
The Obama campaign's talking points about the debate refusal are that the debates are twisted thru the media's filters. So, why doesn't Clinton (or Obama) propose a NO-MEDIATOR DEBATE, where they question each other? I think this would be...more »
Posted on April 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Holy, Shmoly! 26%? What is up, Kentucky?
I'm not a big SurveyUSA fan (automated pollers bother me for many reasons). I know it is a "red state". I know Sen. Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, etc. I know the demographics thing. I know it is only...more »
Posted on April 15, 2008 5:37 PM
TPM in real time?
Could it be? It seems that comments are posting immediately, and my other article popped up right away, too. This could be GREAT!...more »
Posted on April 15, 2008 3:39 PM
McCain's Gas Tax "Holiday" More Like a "Safety Cut"
My Senator, John McCain, continues to flounder to connect on economic issues. I think that his newest proposal for a gas tax "holiday" for the summer driving season is a good one politically - on the surface. Federal taxes are 18.4...more »
Posted on April 15, 2008 2:53 PM
"The Fmr Presidents: Third Shoe to Drop?"
(apologies to Robert Smigel for the title ripoff)In the previous episode, The Fmr Presidents decided to create chaos in the 2008 Presidential campaign.Clinton: Hey, you guys. I've already been busy. You're slackin'. Here, let me show you one more time. Y'know that...more »
Posted on April 11, 2008 7:42 PM
"PARTLY vindicated?" I'd say that Clinton is FULLY...
vindicated for using the story to highlight problems in our present health care system.TPM headline, with link to the NY Times vindication: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187786.php...more »
Posted on April 7, 2008 10:15 PM
Clinton Campaign Suggests New Resolution to Florida and Michigan
On MSNBC minutes ago, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson suggested that Sens. Clinton and Obama meet in the Capital's recreation complex and bowl three games. The first would be a warm-up, at which each candidate would drink a pitcher of...more »
Posted on March 31, 2008 2:02 PM
Sen. Obama Says Rev. Wright Apologized; Did We Miss It? I Guess Not. More Trouble.
Sen. Obama's intereview with Barbara Walters is looking worse and worse. I thought his statement that he would have left the church but for Wright's retirement and apology was bad because (1) it contradicted his previous statement about how he...more »
Posted on March 28, 2008 7:18 PM
Obama Campaign Mgr MISLEADING Supporters?
Some of you may have already seen the "Dinner With Barack" e-mail from David Plouffe (Obama campaign manager). I just got back to my office and read it. This paragraph near the top caught my attention: "In February alone, more...more »
Posted on March 25, 2008 2:28 PM
-
That's exactly the situation I've noted. In fact, it just happened to me with this post. It recognized me (cookie), I clicked "reply", it asked me to log in, I logged in, then had to go back to the Don Key response and click "reply" again. EVEN THEN, the reply box was NOT CHECKED.
Posted at May 8, 2008 8:16 PM in response to Some Quick Changes
-
I also agree that editors should not be allowed to remove posts. However, I do think that they should be able to remove them from the RECOMMENDED articles IF there is a STRONG REASON to do so. Such as, proven falsity.
Posted at May 2, 2008 4:26 PM in response to Better Reader Posts
-
Read my mind again, Genghis. I just looked at those Kantor posts, and came to this one to decry the inability of editors (or fellow readers, for that matter) to remove items from the recommended list - ESPECIALLY when the alleged "event" is shown to be bogus.
A lot of good ideas in your initial post, too. (I'll have to go look for the cameos in this mega-meta-discussion; thanks, Josh and Andrew.) As an occasional contributor and commenter, I have been somewhat frustrated with these issues here. (Especially since I have been supporting Hillary - even without mindless cheer-leading for her or nasty swipes at Barack.)
I hope some good developments result from this.
Posted at May 2, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Better Reader Posts
-
PP, that's not quite the headline. But, even if it was, the headline itself - and the article - are misleading.
Noone has disputed the accounts (it was/is a committee that acts outside our public eye because of the nature of its investigations) that the approval required that the magnet production and technology remain in the US. Nor has anyone disputed that it was in 2003 that the Bush Administration's review - in response to Sen. Bayh's requests - let the remaining plant in Indiana actually be closed. (Appears to me that the Chinese waited until there was a more pliant Administration.)
Posted at April 30, 2008 2:49 PM in response to I recommend David Sirota's piece on Hillary and 200 job losses in Indiana
-
OK, hR, but you DID judge Otto for speculating when numerous others here were speculating from a different perspective. (Ah, but maybe Otto has a different history from the other speculators?)
Posted at April 24, 2008 2:19 PM in response to Wright Gives First Interview to Bill Moyers
-
Hey, we're ALL speculating based upon the two passages published!
Posted at April 24, 2008 1:40 PM in response to Wright Gives First Interview to Bill Moyers
-
flufferwink: Rev. Wright was asked about the hard things Sen. Obama said about Wright. Wright says that he said the hard things because he's a politician. Common interpretation would be that Obama didn't mean the hard things - he just said them because he had to as a politician.
Also factor in overwhelming public perceptions of "politician" and "pastor" - the former says what he needs to to get elected and the latter says (what he believes to be) spiritual truths.
Maybe "backhanded" isn't the PERFECT word. Maybe "somewhat damning" would have been better. (Especially because Obama has positioned himself as different from "politic(ian)s as usual.")
Posted at April 24, 2008 1:36 PM in response to Wright Gives First Interview to Bill Moyers
-
A comment from an Obama supporter/friend of mine from another forum:
"As the person who is going to win the nomination no matter what (fact), Obama had nothing to win and everything to lose by doing a debate that he does not have to.All the more reason why he should.
Prove that he is the "new kind of poitician" that I believe him to be.
And, 100% I agree, no moderators."
Posted at April 23, 2008 8:33 PM in response to Obama Says NO to NC Debate, So How About a NEW Format?
-
Opus: IF you are serious, then no sense in me discussing it with you. They are barely separated in delegates and popular votes.
And, if he HAS "already won", this would be a good way for him to show how he'll kick McCain's butt, right?
Posted at April 23, 2008 4:59 PM in response to Obama Says NO to NC Debate, So How About a NEW Format?
-
Spade: I DO think there is a point - this format could be:
1) a way of calming down the "bitterness" within the party - good for Democrats (bring DOWN both of their negatives)
2) a two-hour infomercial about why the Democrat will be the better choice in November
3) actually show voters still unfamiliar with Obama and Clinton (and believe it or not, there are such voters) why either would be a good President.
4) a way of making it difficult for either of them to "go negative"
****
Mus-Hussein-Grove: I don't think it should be dropped there.gotalife: I think he'd like this format
Posted at April 23, 2008 4:57 PM in response to Obama Says NO to NC Debate, So How About a NEW Format?
