[OT - use open thread - ed.]
Posted by peter at April 16, 2008 07:39 AMpeter,
There's an open thread for that crap.
Use it.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 07:49 AMThanks, eriposte, looks like she's covered most everything. Too bad people would rather have ponies; at least they'll have a couple meals before the 'pukes compromise Mr. Hopey into a stalemate for 4 years...
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 07:50 AMnow that's a speech!
short sentences.
specific promises.
timelines.
the right-wing wars
- on the iraqui people
- on science in america, especially biological science
- on human reproduction and reproductive health
- on global warming and energy independence
will be ended - and fast.
thanks for posting the speech, e'rip.
She's MY girl!
Great speech!
The press wakes up. I heard her say these things on the stump. This is who she is and between the blogs and the MSM she has been reduced to a charicature. Who are we kidding, we are not ready for change, we are ready for the same old stuff. Obama, if he wins, will be of two minds on everything and get nothing.
Posted by stellaa at April 16, 2008 08:08 AM[OT - use open thread - last warning - ed.]
Posted by peter at April 16, 2008 08:14 AMThanks eriposte for posting this about Hillary's speech.
This speech, and what it encapsulates, is the exact reason why I am voting FOR her in the primary next Tuesday.
She does have "vision," along with practicality.
Barack Obama? None. As far as I am concerned, he is poseur, who can provide appropriate voice inflections in speeches.
You haven't seen anything of or from him as of late that even meets the detail and sweep of what Ms. Clinton has produced in this speech. (She is, indeed, ready to lead.) His comments are always devoid of details. He really doesn't get it. And apparently, neither does his supporters in large part. (My view is that their conflating of "American Idol"-ism attitudes about voting as well as their desire of "I want a new car right now!" in regards to pent-up frustration is propelling his candidacy. It's not for the most part based on anything he has actually done that indicates he is indeed a Democrat (not to me is he), a person of integrity (Rezko is just one obvious example of problems with ethics that he has, we could keep going on about his lack of "internal iron"), and has actually thought things through (his comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians is an indicator he doesn't have empathy for those that he doesn't share any life experience overlap with).
So, to echo one of Barack's TV ads:
YES, WE CAN vote for a bonafide, real Democrat, in the primaries, and this fall. And it's Hillary Clinton.
Look, the vetting of Barack Obama has barely begun. I don't like a lot of what Peter posts, because he is a Republican. But he is posting real things and issues about Obama. He does have a Rezko problem. And it's going to matastisize, as the media begin the long overdue examination of the people he consorts with, and the decisions he has made. 60 minutes scratched the surface of this, this past Sunday.
One is known by the company one keeps.
You can be certain that John McCain and the RNC are looking into this stuff with great delight and vigor--Obama's lack of consistency, and of his willingness to not mirror his rhetoric with his actions (look at his past trends). And Obama is clueless as to what his percentage of Teflon he really does have. I can tell you it is nearly nil.
The MSM "hearts" Republicans and Fascism right now. And they will attempt to aid McCain in any way that they can.
To use a metaphorical comparison: When you are going to go into a long, protracted nasty firefight, who would you rather have on your side? A veteran? Or someone who is so green, that they haven't even completed basic training (not even marginally most of his way through his first term in the US Congress)?
Hillary is the veteran.
And I am going to reiterate what I said before.
An uninformed electorate voting == Totalitarianism
eriposte highlighted a good speech by Senator Clinton in a very positive post, but still people in the comments want to attack Obama with vitriol. I hope it at least makes you feel better, because what eriposte put up is far more constructive for both Senator Clinton and for the Party.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 16, 2008 09:29 AMbut still people in the comments want to attack Obama with vitriol.
Prolly 'cos they're bitter.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 09:32 AMthanks to eriposte for a reporter's report. It does read like a good speech, and the positions she takes are good. But speeches are just talk according to Ms. Clinton, it's making it happen that counts. How drastically her points differ from Obama's positions would be a good eriposte article. I wish she would have devoted her campaign to defining these points and positions, but Rev. Wright and Bittergate caught her attention instead.
Posted by T2 at April 16, 2008 09:47 AMCApj
you're taking your assignment as hall monitor
way too seriously.
your comment:
[ but still people in the comments want to attack Obama with vitriol. I hope it at least makes you feel better, because what eriposte put up is far more constructive for both Senator Clinton and for the Party. ]
is nothing more than piou, partisan drivel disguised as concern for the party.
your repeated postings here make clear that you are a devoted fan of obama, as i am of clinton.
the conflict-avoidance stance you so piously urge upon us here is nothing more than
an attempt to control speech criticizing your candidate.
it is precisely in the same category as calling criticism of obama "racist".
in both cases, "vitriol" and "racist", the words are chosen in an attempt to denigrate the criticism to other readers
and to shame and manipulate critics into writing critical mush.
criticism of both candidates NEEDS to be made right up until a nominee is selected in august.
your concern for "the party" is, at best, misplaced, and is, in fact i suspect, just more of the pious, manipulative partisanship we have seen often from obama supporters.
Posted by orionATL at April 16, 2008 09:53 AMI wish she would have devoted her campaign to defining these points and positions, but Rev. Wright and Bittergate caught her attention instead.
Clinton didn't say anything about Wright until after Obama addressed it with his speech and "bittergate" happened last week.
If you'd have listened with an open mind you'd have heard her talking about this since the campaigning started.
Why do you even write such transparent bullshit?
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 09:56 AMNotice how CApj tries to take a comment thread about a Clinton speech (a pretty good one at that) and make it into a comment thread about how mistreated Obama is.
Posted by jwrjr at April 16, 2008 09:59 AMWhat she will do if she becomes President:
The "Hope" agenda. I'll be damned.
Why, this is really magnificent and I've never heard any of it before...unless I heard any of Obama's speeches before she said it.
Indeed, she covers it all. I especially like the part where she said she would investigate the crimes of the Bushco administration...wait a second! That was Obama. Nevermind, she'll be saying it soon enough. Her leadersheep is unquestionable when it comes to the war crimes of the current administration. At least the Clintonistas don't think her leadersheep is bahahahahahd.
The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again, Bill Clinton
Now, that's a plan!!
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 10:02 AMIf I had seen phidip's comment first, I would have thought this was a comedy club. This looks like the usual Obama supporter who takes Obama's practices and projecting them onto Clinton. No doubt he will soon be saying that Obama drank that shot-and-beer first, and Clinton was just copying him.
Posted by jwrjr at April 16, 2008 10:30 AMNo doubt he will soon be saying that Obama drank that shot-and-beer first, and Clinton was just copying him.
Google isn't helping you guys with "Shot-and-a-beer" Clinton's desire to hold the current administration accountable? There is a reason for that.
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 11:06 AMNo answer to the issues raised? Simple. Just try to change the subject. Typical troll.
Posted by jwrjr at April 16, 2008 11:35 AMI'm still waiting for Eriposte to actually explain in a diary why he wants us to vote for HRC instead of passing off an extremely large and extensive quote as a diary or instead of just ripping into Obama (which he did NOT do here). Look at what this diary actually is.
Eriposte personally wrote only 65 words here, and that's including short prepositions, possessive adjectives like "her" and articles such as "the." Also, it includes the abbreviation "W." A more generous word count cannot be found anywhere else. By comparison, my questioning of the value of Eriposte's insubstantive work is around a mere 140 words, not very substantive but still more substantial than this "diary" Eriposte wrote.
I and I'm sure others are still waiting to find out why exactly you support HRC and why we should, too, Eriposte.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 16, 2008 11:39 AMBrian,
I think phidipides might want to have a word with you about parsing.
Counting words?
Are you a total drip?
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 11:48 AMNo answer to the issues raised? Simple. Just try to change the subject. Typical troll.
Sorry jwrjr, phid's been here for years.
Funny how new Clinton fans show up here and call the regulars trolls!
snark, you are so bitter. I'm sorry your candidate is losing.
Posted by T2 at April 16, 2008 11:59 AMShe's not "my candidate". Either one is fine with me.
I'm not bitter about anything. I did fine during the Clinton years and I'm still doing fine today.
Your silly little slap at Clinton doesn't reflect on me, but on you.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 12:03 PMthe conflict-avoidance stance you so piously urge upon us here is nothing more than an attempt to control speech criticizing your candidate. - orionATL
You can say whatever you want, no matter how pointless and destructive!
it is precisely in the same category as calling criticism of obama "racist".
in both cases, "vitriol" and "racist", the words are chosen in an attempt to denigrate the criticism to other readers and to shame and manipulate critics into writing critical mush.
"Vitriol" I think is accurate; "racist" is not but that is your word, not mine. It is possible to have constructive criticism, but what I'm referring to is not that.
criticism of both candidates NEEDS to be made right up until a nominee is selected in august. - orionATL
Yes, I understand, because Obama's negative ratings aren't yet as high as Hillary Clinton's. The nominee will be known in June, BTW.
your concern for "the party" is, at best, misplaced, and is, in fact i suspect, just more of the pious, manipulative partisanship we have seen often from obama supporters. - orionATL
Notice how CApj tries to take a comment thread about a Clinton speech (a pretty good one at that) and make it into a comment thread about how mistreated Obama is. - jwrjr
Exactly what do you all mean to accomplish with attacks on Barack Obama? You're not going to accomplish anything but get Democrats more p***ed off at each other. This post is about the positive vision put forward by Senator Clinton, which is not something we hear about very much in this campaign. It shows how she can be funny and passionate. Why not talk about that?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 16, 2008 12:05 PMThis post is about the positive vision put forward by Senator Clinton, which is not something we hear about very much in this campaign. It shows how she can be funny and passionate. Why not talk about that?
Because commenters like phidipides and Brian Bell are more interested in slinging mud and counting words.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 12:16 PM7of6 You are also trying to change the subject. I said nothing about how long phid had been here. And a word of advice that you won't take - do a little research before trying to insult somebody. I am NOT a "new Clinton fan" and I have been posting on this blog for quite some time. Such a childish attempted-insult makes you look worse than it does me.
Posted by jwrjr at April 16, 2008 12:23 PMSorry jwrjr, phid's been here for years.
It seems like only yesterday, old friend.
Did you see the latest polling after the Clinton attack chihuahuas (Penn and company) went after Obama in ads and blogs over the bitterness kerfuffle? There has been a little more slipping than just Clinton's girdle. Hey, at least she still takes "Ah'll Gawd-damn shoots anyone who calls me bitter" Kentucky! And Obama indicates he'll go after the current administration for war crimes. Life is too good! I must celebrate:
"Worthington! Warm the engine of the Bentley GTC and affix the 'I am not an elitist' adhesive device to the lower left quadrant of the bumper. I'm motoring to the golfing club for a round of sticks and balls. Afterwards, I'll have a celebratory Crown boilermaker at the greens club."
Worthington responds in mindless public-schoolese similar to adultspeak in Charlie Brown T.V. specials: "Wocka wocka wocka, whaaa whaaa whaaa."
"No, you fool! I left it in the kitchen after motoring in from the billiards room."
...slinging mud and counting words.
12, 13, 14, 14, 15...fuck!
"Worthington! Load another muddy peasant child in the catapult."
Worthington responds: "Wocka wocka wocka, whaaa whaaa whaaa."
"No, a small one. I need some distance on this shot."
Posted by phidip..."I am not an elitist"...ides at April 16, 2008 12:35 PMeRiposte, excellent post. Even though Hillary is not my candidate currently, I fully appreciate any positive exposure of her.
I'd like to thank Steve for putting CA Pol Junkie back on as a front pager. His voice is a welcome rememberance of reason and sanity.
Excuse me jwrjr, you called phid a troll. I'm correcting you. He's always been one of the smartest and funniest commenters here.
If you're real lucky maybe I'll tell you what we did at the last TLC convention! What a hoot!
You may be right ... on a technicality. I thought trolls were those who disrupt threads, interject irrelevancies, and generally change the subject when called on their irrelevance. That applies to you and phid. I was unaware that there was a time element involved.
BTW, maybe you can clear something up for me. Why is it that Obama supporters think that the people that they have insulted and been condescending to are going to turn around and vote for Obama?
He's always been one of the smartest and funniest commenters here.
Well, until he went nuts and turned into a troll, that is.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 02:15 PMWhy is it that Obama supporters think that the people that they have insulted and been condescending to are going to turn around and vote for Obama?
Is that a trick question? You vote your conscience.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 16, 2008 02:40 PMWell, until he went nuts and turned into a troll, that is.
Oh, that's right, because he disagrees with you.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 16, 2008 02:43 PMHis voice is a welcome rememberance of reason and sanity.
Wow...did you really mean to say it that way because that's a pretty insulting comment to all the current front pagers here...I thought you were better and above all that Seven.
Anyway, great post, nice speech.
Posted by emal at April 16, 2008 04:19 PMOh, that's right, because he disagrees with you.
Ya got me. He thinks it's okay to trash women 'cos he doesn't like ladybits and I disagree.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 04:24 PMIf you're real lucky maybe I'll tell you what we did at the last TLC convention! What a hoot!
Stories of another community in which we are not welcome!
We'll likely have to do the next one in Bangkok...as long as iac promises not to do that fireworks and flammable liquids performance piece again. Come to think of it, the liquids might not have been part of the show. She swills some pretty potent stuff -rumor is she distills it at home. Bring Nomex just in case.
Well, until he went nuts and turned into a troll, that is.
I'll thank you to know that I have always been nuts...and I was turned into a newt. So, does Hillary weigh less than a duck?
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 04:46 PMWow...did you really mean to say it that way because that's a pretty insulting comment to all the current front pagers here...
Did you read all the comments knocking CA Pol Junkie in this thread? I don't believe Turkana or paradox were brought up.
But twist it like you want... a lot of that going on lately.
The point is, there has been a lack of civility here during this primary. I'm as guilty as anyone.
CAPJ comes in, speaks the truth, praises eRiposte's post, yet he is still given a bum rap.
So I come to the defense of regulars and someone who is trying to tone down the rhetoric. Pretty shitty treatment if you ask me!
And personally, I'm sick of all this Clinton did this, Obama said that crap!
...I thought you were better and above all that Seven.
You mean like an "elitist"? ;)
So, does Hillary weigh less than a duck?
Is that a snide remark about her thick ankles? *smirk* But yes, you've always been nuts! That's why you're a requirement at TLC conventions. Who else could get Judith into that Carmen Miranda gear?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 05:39 PMFirst, I want to say that this speech is entirely off the record.
OK, I actually laughed out loud at that one. Haha!
Posted by Moon at April 16, 2008 05:48 PMIs that a snide remark about her thick ankles? *smirk*
And I was thinking of the Monty Python piece?
Posted by Seven of Six at April 16, 2008 06:05 PMWell, duh! That's why I *smirked*! *rolls eyes*
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 06:17 PMI don't get it. Who's this Python chap?
The debate starts at 7 here in the Phx area. Please don't ruin it for us. If Hillary really was spatteded out, I want to see it for myself.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 16, 2008 06:24 PMSeven of Six said, among other things, many of which could be summed up by this initial quote:
Funny how new Clinton fans show up here and call the regulars trolls!
AMEN!
Have some of us been mean-spirited right back? You're damn straight we have, but we were here first! Mean-spirited reminds me...
Snark, you're mean! I think my questions about substance were legitimate critique.
Jwrjr, Phid's not a troll. He may be Left Coaster's oldest reader -- in terms of how long this blog has been around and how long he's been here reading and commenting, not his age. But Phid's no troll. Which goes right back to what Seven of Six said.
I have to say, though, it's good to see folks on opposite ends of the Obama-Hillary divide laughing together.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 16, 2008 07:10 PM