Jeff, I've been critical of Obama for not doing enough for some time, but this time, I'm not going to join you. Even if I agree with you on the merits, I think the dynamics of this situation are pushing Obama and Hillary to try to outdo each other.
As Jeff notes above, Hillary will have to bookend Bush's speech (Obama being the other half of the set) in a way that outshines Obama.
I'm happy to see both of them making getting out of Iraq the front page issue, and I hope they are forced by the politics to commit to a strong fight against a no-strings appropriations bill.
Jeff, I didn't realize you were here to serve as Hillary Cheerleader...I thought that was Soto's job.
Posted by T2 at September 12, 2007 10:11 AMSen Clinton is a member of the Weak Tea Party, led by Sen Reid and other so-called 'centrists'.
I find it amusing she selects the vocabulary of movie critic to characterize the credibility of Petraeus' reporting. Who's is putting on a show, The General or Senator Clinton? And who is the audience?
I agree her letter is better for argumentative purposes, but we all know where correspondence with the White House ends up.
Posted by gtash at September 12, 2007 10:26 AMThis isn't helpful. Most of us are perfectly capable of visiting Hillary's website if we want to read how Hillary rocks and Obama sucks and vice versa.
Is impartial, competent reporting and analysis dead? And such idealistic reporting would include an ability to "read between the lines" of every candidate. That was completely absent in 2000 in any reporting on GWB. If it hadn't been nobody would have been surprised by what Bush/Cheney have done in the past six plus years. The far left did a bit better on that measure in evaluating GWB but were totally incapable of reading Gore.
Posted by Marie at September 12, 2007 10:31 AMMarie, what is your analysis of Hilary's comments?
Posted by John B. at September 12, 2007 10:42 AMI thought David G was the Obama point man?
In any event, what is the point of repeatedly bashing Obama in order to make Hillary seem the better candidate? If Hillary is the better candidate, then why can't her policy positions stand on their own without always presenting them by knocking Obama?
Posted by Christopher at September 12, 2007 10:48 AMJeff, yesterday you said that if Sen. Clinton went on for seven minutes like Sen. Obama we would be hearing about it for days. She basically did. So far, nothing in the MSM other than Dana Milbank bashing Obama.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 11:01 AMAt least Hillary Clinton hasn't registered her disapproval with MoveOn.org's ad, as did Speaker Botox and the pro-Iraq war Republicans in the Congress.
Posted by Christopher at September 12, 2007 11:09 AMJohn B - sorry, but I'm not qualified to analyze either Hillary's or Obama's statements. Simply analyzing their two statements and then comparing and contrasting them would be a major undertaking. And yet that alone would be of limited value because it wouldn't be within the larger context of these two politicians. Wouldn't answer questions such as whether or not their statements/current positions are consistent with their past positions and their political orientation. IOW, how much of those statements are real and how much is merely words crafted by an aide to make the candidates look good.
The other major reason why I'm not qualified for this task is that I detest most of the legislation that passed during Bill Clinton's tenure. As Hillary has endorsed and not rejected any of that, it's nearly impossible for me to have a positive view of another Clinton in the WH. (It doesn't help that her flat voice grates on me almost as much as GWB's simpering twang does.) As if that isn't bad enough, the whole idea of political dynasties inhabiting the WH is so contrary to democratic principles that I can't believe that so many think this is a cool idea. It's not cool and only reflects, IMHO, the total bankruptcy of our political systems. So, Hillary wouldn't get a fair shake from me and therefore, it would be unfair for me to attempt to present my analysis of her as anything other than highly biased.
Posted by Marie at September 12, 2007 11:15 AMJeff, who has made the announcement that they will unveil their healthcare plans over several points in the near future? Is that not also a buildup for effect?
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 11:16 AMAnd another thing, Jeff -- "That's the big plan? Problem: he already voted with Hillary last January to have everyone out by the end of March, '08." Is it reasonable to assume he's using the same schedule and it is now starting later so the end date is later as well?
for you Hillary or Obama supporters:
Will EITHER one of them filibuster the supplemental appropriations bill giving Dear Leader another $40 BILLION for Iraq (or is it Iran?)
the occupation will not end by January 2009, and it will not end even with the election of a Democrat
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 12, 2007 11:57 AMIsn't the chimp asking for $50 billion, not $40 billion?
Concearned troll minds want to know.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 12, 2007 12:18 PM"he already voted with Hillary last January to have everyone out by the end of March, '08."
NO HE DID NOT. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE AND HILLARY VOTED FOR!
Seriously. Am I the only one who actually READ the Levin/Reid amendment?!!! Even Barbara Lee claims it called for everyone out by the end of March, '08. That is not - repeat NOT - what levin/Reid called for.
Please, people READ the damned amendment so that you understand what Hillary, Obama, Barbara Lee and all the rest actually promoted so enthusiastically and voted for.
To summarize, it called for a "REDUCTION" and "TRANSITION" to a "LIMITED PRESENCE". The size of the reduction, by an unspecified number of an unspecified category of troops to begin within 120 days, and to end no later than March, '08. It explicitly DOES NOT call for "everybody out" at any time.
The Amendment explicitly calls for troops to remain in Iraq, and describes their mission:
"1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.
(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations."
Realistically all three of these "missions" would involve something a reasonable person would consider combat.
We MUST stop accepting at face value ANYTHING we are told by Democrats OR Republicans. As I said even Barbara Lee claimed that Levin-Reid called for a full withdrawal. Either she was not being truthful or she did not read what she voted on. Either way is not good.
"I'm happy to see both of them making getting out of Iraq the front page issue"
Since when is withdrawing combat troops "getting out of Iraq"?
Note: Fewer than half of the troops in Iraq are combat troops. Therefore, "withdrawing combat troops" would leave some 80,000 or so troops still there. That should be plenty to populate those massive permanent - excuse me, "enduring" (can someone PLEASE explain to my how this is functionally different from permenent?) - military bases they have spent billions to build and equip with all the amenities and conveniences of a small American town.
Neither Obama nor Hillary is going to save the situation.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 12:35 PMcurrent MSNBC headline - "Bush expected to back Petraeus plan"...stuff like this would be funny if it wasn't such a sad testimony on the state of Media B.S. So, Bush writes a plan, a general he commands reports it, then MSNBC reports that Bush supports the plan he wrote. I guess these people have every right to take the American public for fools. I think we are,mostly.
Posted by T2 at September 12, 2007 12:39 PMShirin,
That text looks a lot like the FEINGOLD-Reid bill. First round voting got 30 Yeas. I believe Feingold is trying to re-introduce his bill next week. The text, in its entirety:
a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Although I like provision C, I certainly believe we could do better. Unfortunately, only those without the power to create and vote on legislation seem to feel free to demand a full withdrawal.
Term limits anyone?
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 12, 2007 01:30 PMHey man, don't hide behind other bloggers, answer some questions on your own.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 01:43 PMI just tuned back in, Rolla, I'm not hiding, I just wanted to share some info. This does look like a pretty rough thread, though. You have a question?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 12, 2007 01:46 PMJeff,
Your words have caught up with you.
By posting those four words and two links you've revealed yourself to be committed not to blogging about Hillary's campaign but on tearing down Obama. I always thought as much.
Posted by Christopher at September 12, 2007 01:49 PMJeff, please address:
1. Yesterday you said that if Sen. Clinton went on for seven minutes like Sen. Obama we would be hearing about it for days. She basically did. So far, nothing in the MSM other than Dana Milbank bashing Obama.
2. Who has made the announcement that they will unveil their healthcare plans over several points in the near future? Is that not also a buildup for effect?
3. "That's the big plan? Problem: he already voted with Hillary last January to have everyone out by the end of March, '08." Is it reasonable to assume he's using the same schedule and it is now starting later so the end date is later as well?
Thank you.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 01:50 PM"That text looks a lot like the FEINGOLD-Reid bill."
It is a lot like it. I believe it is a modification of that bill, minus the only really good piece, provision C. It was added as an amendment to the Appropriations Bill - the one the Senate pulled that all nighter over a couple of months ago.
That Amendment was introduced by Carl Levin (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Kerry (D-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Joe Biden (D-DE), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 01:57 PMJeff - citing Armando doesn't work for many of us. Armando is almost always wrong about everything. As I don't read Stoller (or if I did, he didn't make enough of an impression on me to remember his name), will rely on others to assess that source.
Posted by Marie at September 12, 2007 01:57 PMJeff - let's put it this way: the criticism of Obama is legitimate. I agree wholeheartedly. I was cheering Matt Stoller on. Contrasting it with Hillary's 'leadership' and talking up her campaign and impugning Obama all in the same post - that's tacky of any indpendent blogger, much less the "Hillary Campaign Reporter". It's purely shilling for her. It makes blogreaders ask if the payoff is in cash or oral sex.
Even if this piece had been penned by Soto (who's come out for Hillary), I'd be questioning who stuffed 'new Steve' in the box with 'old Steve'. If it had been penned by David G., I'd be questioning the wisdom of letting a Clinton flack report on Obama.
Matt Stoller hit this story out of the park because he confined his observations on Obama, intruding into the other candidates as appropriate. Your piece hurdles the line between fair comparison and into the territory usually occupied by campaign attack messaging. The story is not about Hillary Clinton, the story is about Barack Obama, therefore let an independent blogger on this journal or David G. write the story.
Marie, this isn't dkos, few here knows or cares who Armando/BTD is. That kinda backbiting's what turned Booman into a ghost town and we'd prefer it doesn't come here.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2007 02:10 PMI only needed to hear one thing about Hillary and Obama to decide that there was no way on earth I would support them in any way, let alone vote for them.
They have both declared their intention to significantly enlarge the military. There is only one reason the U.S. would need a larger military and that is to continue its imperial agenda of conquest and occupation of unwilling countries.
Democrats are, on the whole, as devoted to the agenda of world military, political, and economic domination as are the Republicans. Hillary and Obama have both made it clear that they have no intention of withdrawing completely from Iraq. Hillary and Obama have both stated that they intend to enlarge the military.
2 + 2 = 4.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 02:16 PMThe story is not about Hillary Clinton, the story is about Barack Obama, therefore let an independent blogger on this journal or David G. write the story.
Prolly a good idea, idio. BTW, I'm ready for the third party now - let's go. After watching this dog and pony with Petraeus, I wanna puke on the Dems. They were played by the Bushies with this whole Magical September dealie; it just shows they haven't learned a thing about how the 'pukes play the game!
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2007 02:26 PMiamcoyote - I was not the one who introduced Armando in this thread. He was cited as support for Jeff's piece. I merely pointed out that he's not a credible source - should have added that he describes himself as a "liberal hawk" and as an attorney represents large corporations like WalMart.
Posted by Marie at September 12, 2007 02:42 PMChristopher, I just noticed a couple of bloggers who made the same point as me, if anything, I was nicer about it. We're in the primary season, if Hillary and Obama are both addressing an issue, I find it helpful to compare and contrast.
Rolla:
1) You're right, I figured she'd be criticized. I didn't see anything about her performance except for here with Steve's posts. Color me wrong on this point.
2) The answer would by Hillary! And I think her reasoning for doing it the way she has, by addressing cost, then quality, and ultimately ending up with the proposal (I think next week), is the issue is so important to her and everyone else, she wants to spend as much time as possible on it. Or, like you surmise, it could be for effect, because she believes hers to be the best plan and is waiting for everyone else to show their hand first.
3) I'm not sure I understand this question, but I know that both he and Hillary supported beginning a withdrawl beginning in March, originally.
Marie, I didn't know Armando was off-limits here. Stoller's post, though, I found notable since he has been pretty consistent with his criticism of Hillary. He's a really good contributor to leftist discussion, you should check him out more often.
Sorry this took me so long but it's been crazy at work today. Thanks for reading and I certainly didn't mean to step on David G's toes, Hillary meant to pre-empt Obama's speech so I reported it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 12, 2007 02:50 PMThanks, Jeff. Question 3 relates to the fact that if you have a timeline, schedule, and it hasn't started already, it gets pushed back. So, it is not a "problem" as you say because his method is consistent.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 02:56 PM"both he and Hillary supported beginning a withdrawl beginning in March"
No, they did not. They supported a "reduction" by an unspecified number of troops, and a "transition" in terms of the "mission". They also supported keeping and unspecified number of troops in Iraq for in uspecified period of time.
That is NOT a withdrawal.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 03:00 PMI merely pointed out that he's not a credible source
Says you. I happen to think he's a dick, but that doesn't mean he's not credible on some things.
- should have added that he describes himself as a "liberal hawk" and as an attorney represents large corporations like WalMart.
There was a huuuge pie fight over his outing; prolly not in our interest here to go into it. I know a couple people who were really hurt during that mess, so that's all I'm gonna say about it.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 12, 2007 03:11 PMIdio, Coyote, I'm not sure what to say besides I just call it like I see it. The AP story I read this morning detailed Hillary's letter to the White House as a way of drawing a distinction between her and Obama on Iraq. So I drew the distinction. And Obama, he's just time and time again shown himself to be so disingenuous, whether it be playing up the outsider image while wineing and dineing with hollywood stars and playing footsie with Joe Lieberman, or bashing Hillary for taking "lobbyist" money while he's doing the same, or leaking the David Hsu/Clinton relationship to the Wall Street Journal while he himself took money from the strange little fugitive (actually that's complete speculation on my part but I've seen it alleged elsewhere), or his endless boasting of running a "people's campaign" while clinging to Oprah to keep his head above water, etc. I know I'm the only one bringing this stuff up on this site but it's being talked about elsewhere, and that's part of the reason I linked to Open Left and Talk Left (besides the fact they agreed with me on Obama's big Iraq speech and I was getting pretty beat up on this thread). I'm just engaging in a debate about our next president, and so far I have no orders to check my brain at the door before I post something here.
Stoller posts Chris Dodd's harsh words for both Clinton and Obama today, and that's all part of it, too. If David G. wants to pound me in his post, that's fine, I'm a big boy. But again, I'm just calling it like I see it. Like everyone else here.
Now Idio, on this issue of "payoffs," I can assure you I am receiving neither of the forms you indicated. For anyone wishing to attempt a payoff in such ways, please e-mail me. 8)
Peace.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 12, 2007 03:48 PM"so disingenuous..." Hmm, I've got a disingenuous Hillary moment for you, and it's a personal reason I do not like her, 2004: "You know, Mahatma Ghandi, he ran a gas station down in St. Louis..." Then, take as much money from Indians as you can. This is rich white liberal bigotry that is all too common. Why doesn't she tell a MLK, Jr. joke while she's at it? Oh, that's right, much bigger voting block. See, I've got to explain to my 2 Indian sons that their so called progressive president thinks its funny to make ethnic jokes about them. Call it petty, thin skinned, whatever, I'm not voting for a bigot.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 04:10 PMRolla, enlighten me, that wouldn't be petty at all to feel that way if it were true. If you have a link or a book to point to help me out.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 12, 2007 04:28 PMwww.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/
And before you say, "but, but, but, she apologized.." it doesn't matter to me, the impulse that caused her to say it is there.
BTW, why don't you know this?
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 04:33 PMRollaMO, along the same lines:
During her campaign for the Senate, Hillary delivered a public humiliation to her Muslim supporters after ADL and other Zionist groups expressed "concern" that she was accepting donations from Muslim organizations. She actually made a P.R. event out of returning the money. It was a terrible, very public slap in the face to all Muslims and other Middle Eastern people as well.
More importantly, it revealed something about her. Once again, the bigger voting bloc trumped ethics and decent behaviour with her.
For that alone I could never support her. And now we have her vote on the Iraq aggression, her refusal to admit she was wrong, her intention to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, her willingness to consider bombing just about anyone and everyone, the fact that she can even think about, let alone talk seriously about using nuclear weapons, and the fact that she intends to continue the domination-by-force agenda as evidenced by her plan to enlarge the military.
I would stay home from the polls before I would vote for her, and I feel almost as strongly about Obama.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 04:38 PMShirin, you'll need to provide a link to Jeff, he's probably not aware of it.
Posted by RollaMO at September 12, 2007 04:50 PM:o}
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 04:58 PMiamcoyote - am glad I missed that whole piefight - didn't even know that he was outed which is a completely unacceptable thing to do except for L. Craig type situations. What was done to billmon was terrible.
Posted by Marie at September 12, 2007 05:15 PMRolla, I do remember that whole deal now, it was really suprising to me because she was such a student of Ghandi's methods and writings in college according to biographies. It's certainly inappropriate for a Senator to speak that way, and it was an unfortunate mistake, you're right.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 12, 2007 05:33 PM
I find all of these "Hillary's better than Obama" pieces quite amusing. As if there were any difference at all worth mentioning other than their gender and skin color. It's kind of like marketing the same product - like a soda pop - with different packaging...still the same DLC stuff inside no matter what it looks like on the outside.
Well, at least we'll be able to drill-down into the minutiae of difference between two sets of talking points, neither of which are really designed to denounce or attempt to repair all the damage the Neocons have wrought around the globe and here at home. Meanwhile, both candidates are neatly chopping-off wide deviations of the greater issues for the sake of soundbytes and propaganda -- in other words, not representing any real substantive difference between what has been going on for almost 8 years and what will occur in the 8 years thereafter.
Its really funny....in the last 6-8 months, The "Left Coaster" has moved so far to the right that many of you are now blogging somewhere around the ideological Iowa....no, make that the ideological Kansas City.
Soccerdad! Where are you!!
Posted by Tampa Student at September 12, 2007 08:51 PMTampa Student, I am with you regarding the lack of significant difference between Hillary and Obama. I would take it a step farther and suggest that at least when it comes to foreign policy the differences between them and any given Republican are more cosmetic than anything else.
Remember that Clinton spent eight years preparing Iraq for the kill. He starved the people of food, of medicine, of all the basic necessities of life. He starved them intellectually (such items as medical journals, paper, and pencils were banned), and starved them of contact with the outside world. And he bombed Iraq regularly 1-3 times per week whether it needed it or not. By the time Georgie and the Neocons got their hands on it, Iraq was ready for the kill. How very fitting then, that Hillary could be the one to finish the job for the Neocons by making sure those permanent - excuse me, "enduring" - military bases are well populated with American troops, and that the Imperial Regional Command and Control Center - excuse me, "embassy" - in Baghdad is fully staffed, up and running, and its missile system armed and ready to fire.
Posted by Shirin at September 12, 2007 11:14 PMokkkkkkk, let's try this again:
for you Hillary or Obama supporters: Will EITHER one of them filibuster the supplemental appropriations bill giving Dear Leader another $50 BILLION for Iraq (or is it Iran?)
[thanks to TIKI AL for noting the amount was $50 bil, now try answering the question]
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 13, 2007 06:51 AMJeff,
You getting paid for that whorin'? That's some mighty hardcore whorin'.
Or is ass-kisser the more apropos characterization...
It's like reading Hillary Pravda.
Posted by RAM at September 13, 2007 07:14 AMGhandi and Goldwater. Makes sense.
Posted by RollaMO at September 13, 2007 07:19 AMTo all commentators except the ones who actually write for this site:
Are there no lawns to be mowed where you live? Do you have so much time on your hands that you've become self-proclaimed critics of BLOGGING? Everybody's got an idea of how a blog should be written. Everybody's got a criticism. Do you write for free? Rolla? Shirin? If so, please throw some links out there to YOUR stuff so we can see how the masters do it.
As for the Ghandi thing, I don't even get the joke. When Jesse Jackson called New York "Hymietown" or however you spell it, I at least GOT that offensive reference. Ghandi ran a gas station in St. Louis? Are gas stations in general run by Indian people, or is it specifically St. Louis? I thought the stereotype was convenience stores, like on the Simpsons. (And by the way, I don't think Matt Groening has ever apologized for the character of Abu, so you might wanna start flaming him.)
Rolla, I mean no disrespect to you or your culture or your family and I have no idea who you are, but if I had to put money on it, I'd say you've made at least one off-color remark in your lifetime that could be construed as a "lame attempt at humor" with no maliciousness behind it. The thing is, the world doesn't care what YOU think, or what I think for that matter. We're not running for anything.
My point being, we've all done it. And if we did in front of microphones and cameras, we'd burn for it too. If it offended you personally, show your defiance by not voting for her. I'm not voting for her either, but not because of an off color joke from 3 years ago.
My family is of Italian heritage. Of the "lame attempts at humor" I've had directed at me, my personal favorite is one that my father-in-law likes to say. "I took my son-in-law hunting, but it's difficult because he's Italian, so he likes to put the deer in the trunk of the car and THEN shoot it, and then drive it out to Jersey."
When I heard this, I laughed my ass off. Let's all lighten up a bit.
And then Shirin says I would stay home from the polls before I would vote for her, and I feel almost as strongly about Obama.
There you go. Express yourself through your vote. But in the meantime, can we get you to boycott the blog comments as well?
Now before you all begin to launch into me w/ comments that I won't have time to read, I just wanna ask this of all of you:
Stop hating and start participating. If there's debate, it should be political -- not an attack on those who volunteer their time to do the reseach and write for free.
Mr. Dinelli, thank you for your diligence and hard work. Some of us may disagree, but we will try to express that respectfully in the future. As for the rest of the anonymous chuckleheads (you know who you are), just ignore them.
Vigilante, please reread my comments. I have neither criticized nor complained about anyone who writes here or anything they have written, including Jeff Dinelli. I have merely pointed out facts that I consider extremely disturbing about Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama - facts that put them out of the running for my vote.
Last time I checked we all have a right to free speech and free expression, even when you don't want to hear what we have to say. And you have every right not to read my posts, or the posts of anyone else. Therefore my advice to you is that if you find what I have to say annoying, simply skip over my comments. That will save you both time and annoyance.
Posted by Shirin at September 13, 2007 09:39 AMVigilante, the lawn is done and this will be it from me, I promise. Here's why I went off on Jeff's last post/rant citing the "disingenuousness" of Obama - I saw Hillary's mug last week with a prominent Indian businessman and it reminded me of the quote from 2004. It's not the only reason I won't vote for her.
Plus, when the individual who is supposed to cover her campaign spends his time as part time cheerleader for Hillary part time Obama basher, I get a little confused. I thought Mary said when David joined he would cover the good and not so good moments of the Obama campaign, so I assumed Jeff was supposed to be doing so as well.
This site needs to figure out what it wants to do in the primaries, or at least admit what it is doing.
Sorry I could not bring more insightful commentary to this community. Out.
Posted by RollaMO at September 13, 2007 12:35 PMDon't run off, Rolla. Just... you do realize these campaign bloggers people don't get paid, right? Give 'em a break is all I'm saying.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 13, 2007 02:35 PMDon't run off, Rolla. Just... you do realize these campaign bloggers don't get paid, right? Give 'em a break is all I'm saying.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at September 13, 2007 02:35 PMIf you write something somewhere where comments are expected, expect that which you write to be commented upon.
Thank you, drive through....
If I wanted one-way communication, I could turn on my television rather than reading a current events blog.
Posted by Tampa Student at September 13, 2007 06:38 PMDear LeftCoaster, et al,
Upon the announcement by Mr. Soto (The Queenmaker?) a few months ago of his desire to unbiasly support "THEPROMQUEEN", I have kept my word and stopped reading what was once my "firststopblog", The Left Coaster. I now hang out at Kos, Firedoglake, and of course, OpenLeft. They are still trying to employ progressive, non-centered, NON-DLC fairness in their reporting of the primary campaigns.
I recently ran across an article in OpenLeft about the dust-up between Sammantha Powers of the Obama Foreign Policy Team and uh,...MOTHER-TUCKERCARLSON, stenographer and lapdog of the "Bushblog.aka", used to be liberal journalist(in high school) then learned to love a bow-tie because I appeal to the REPUBLICAN YOUTH, according to my pollster.
It was a classic "bitch-slap" of Mother-Tucker by the Obama Foreign Policy Team and a perfect introduction to their well reasoned plan for the US withdrawal from Iraq. It was clear by her measured tones that Ms. Powers had her "phaser" on a non-leathal "STING HIS CONDECENCING BALLS" setting. But, do your own homework and form your own opinions because other than The LeftCoaster, the rest of the world (ie. progressive press) thinks that Obama's Iraq plan and policy "hit it out the park".
I stopped by "my ol'time use to be", The LeftCoaster, to see how this "walk-off" foreign policy home run by Team Obama would be received.
Man, their teeth are dripping with soap scum from THEPROMQUEEN's bathwater. Not even a hint of the greatness and forethought contained in the Obama Iraq policy. They actually sunk to the level of high school slander. While I realize that their heart is with Obama, their pockets are obviously with THEPROMQUEEN. If I hadn't read THE REAL NEWS elsewhere, I wouldn't have known that they were making it up.
I feel sorry for Steve (whom I used to admire) and Jeff (obvious shill and he who wears a size 12 cheerleader's outift) because they have lost all credibility in the progresive press. I just hope that the PROMQUEEN's, uh... donations(?) to The LeftCoaster will make up for their lack of progressive advertising revenue and integrity.
Dirty tricks and journalistic shills are old (Nixon?)school.
Funny thing about integrity is that you are defined by your words and the words of those with whom you agree, and of course, those who agree with you.
A shout-out of thanks to Moveon.org for stealing my "General Betrayus" zapper and not giving credit where credit is due...Unless, of course, they don't read The Left Coaster anymore.... either. In that case, great minds think alike?
One World,
Domino49
PS.
I'll check back from time-to-time to see what other dastardly sniping President Obama will get
from THEPROMQUEEN's SHILLS. Dudes, SERIOUSLY?
As in, you expect to be taken....?
PS2(Pun intended)
Does anyone else remember the famous end scene from the movie "The Oscar"? Steve(Frank?), don't let that happen to you..!!
BTW:"Ms. Clinton..we're ready for your close-up".
Posted by Domino49 at September 14, 2007 08:39 PM