Damn dude,

You do know that Harold Ickes was on the committee that voted to strip Florida and Michigan right?

Tell me you have that minimal amount of grounding in facts.

Although in another way I'm impressed that you can still manage to post all the way from Planet Hillary. How long do transmissions take to reach Earth from where you are? Must be at least 3 minutes.

Posted at May 8, 2008 3:43 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Says No To New Michigan Delegate Proposal

Sorry Tena, but you're ducking the question. You insisted that I answer whether I'd seen the interview, and I obliged you. It seems fair to expect you to do the same regarding whether you were for or against the Dems having a Debate on Fox. I'm not trying to play gotcha here, but if you were against having the Dem debates on Fox, I'd like to hear how what Obama did was different (and again that's not a rheotorical question; I'm truly curious).

I agree that with you that Fox needs Obama much more than he needs them, but from my perspective that argues for him not going on the network. Their ratings are way down this year and I don't see any reason to help them out; I'm a bit skeptical that Obama was reaching 800,000 little old ladies when he went on.

I think I've been on these boards enough that you'd know I have no love for Hillary, but if we're going to give Barack a pass for going on Fox News, it seems to me we now have to give Hillary one.

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:46 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

Hey you're welcome to your opinion Tena, but if it's OK for Obama to go on Fox then it's damn sure OK for Hillary to do it. And I'm still waiting for your answer on the whole Dem debate on Fox: were you fer or agin it?

And as to stepping off, you're the one that came out guns blazing so you're looking pretty damn hypocritical to me. And if you're not espousing an Obama-can-do-no-wrong-orthodoxy then answer the question about the Dem debates, thanks.

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:17 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

Yes, I did and I didn't see the "pushback" that the campaign ill advisedly promised.

Now please address my points above or throttle back on the Obama-orthodoxy.

I'm free to voice my criticisms about my candidate and my party and I'm happy to discuss them in an intellectually honest way, but ad hominems and ultimatums don't make for good discussions.

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:02 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

I'm not talking like an asshat at all Tena.

For the same reasons I didn't want the Dem debates to be on Fox, I don't want to see that Republican Talkingpoint Network legitimized by the presidential nominee.

Now if you were fine with having the Dem debates on Fox and you you're fine with having Dems in general on that network--that's your opinion. But don't pretend that there isn't a counter argument to yours, and don't pretend that it doesn't have some legitimate points. In my view Dems get nothing from Fox because that network is completely and utterly biased. I'm not against trying to reach across the aisle at all, I'm just against doing it in stupid ways.

Posted at April 29, 2008 1:52 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

I've never liked it when Dem candidates go on Fox, Hillary, Barack, or whoever. But if Hillary goes on and gives O'Liely the pushback that Obama's campaign promised... well that's a bit of one-upmanship that's going to be hard to ignore. And you can believe that's how it'll get spun, both by the Clinton campaign and the networks.

Posted at April 29, 2008 1:41 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

Billy,

I'm gone for a few days and come back to find you're hanging up your spurs? Say it ain't so...

Posted at April 25, 2008 10:43 PM in response to I've Made A Decision

So true!

Posted at April 25, 2008 12:51 PM in response to Hillary's Game Plan -- A Path To Victory?

Not close by a longshot:

Actually, that's simply ridiculous. Go to Real Clear Politics and look at their popular vote estimates (pre-Pennsylvania):

Popular vote total: Obama +717,086
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA: Obama +827,308

Popular Vote (w/FL): Obama +422,314
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA: Obama +532,536

Popular Vote (w/FL *MI): Obama +94,005
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA: Obama +204,227

So see what they have done -- the Clinton campaign and Jerome have taken the roughly 215,000 net votes Clinton gained in Pennsylvania, and added them to the popular vote count that includes the unsanctioned contests in Michigan and Florida, and excludes caucuses in four states. How's that for inclusiveness?

It gets worse. That Michigan vote estimate? Obama wasn't on the ballot. If you count the "uncommitted" votes for Obama -- all of them anti-Hillary votes, remember -- that would add 237,762 votes to Obama's total.

Which means that in Clinton and Jerome's world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you "disenfranchise" every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton.

That takes a new and particularly audacious level of chutzpah.

Posted at April 23, 2008 5:02 PM in response to More People Have Now Voted For Me Than For My Opponent...

Sorry, more like 1 in 6 Clinton supporters.

Posted at April 23, 2008 3:32 PM in response to Excellent News for Hillary from the CNN Delegate Calculator!!!