My wrong numbers: Hillary by 10 in Indiana and Obama by 7 in NC.
Posted by Koshembos at May 6, 2008 03:06 PMNah, I'd rather here Eriposte give us some more of his dripping sarcastic snipes towards us Democrats who want to end this and start fighting against the GOP slime, while attempting to defend Clinton's pandering on her gas tax plan and somehow defy the basic principles of supply and demand:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135323/page/1
Because, well, ummm, Hillary is special, and the oil companies would NEVER raise the price as a consequence to this.....
And why did Mr. Krugman call this plan "pointless" again?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 6, 2008 03:10 PMif she beats him in indiana by a larger margin than he beats her in nc, that will be a huge meomentum storyline, but the demographics make that almost impossible.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 03:10 PMyou obviously missed the part where krugman criticized the obama campaign for misrepresenting what he wrote about clinton and the gas tax. he criticized mccain's plan, not clinton's.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 03:12 PMif she beats him in indiana by a larger margin than he beats her in nc, that will be a huge meomentum storyline, but the demographics make that almost impossible.
Yeah, that good ol' media storyline that has helped Hillary move the goalposts as much as possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9qd-P2bIiY&eurl=http://208.76.84.21/thefield/
Demographics are irrelevant at this point. This race, albeit fun to play along with the media hype, has not been a race since Super Tuesday.
But I'll play along and continue to watch the inevitable.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 6, 2008 03:16 PMTurkana, can you tell me which part I'm missing in Krugman's blog?:
Anyway, John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist ), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no.
and
The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/
Guess I'm not following what you're referring to here. Seems pretty clear he's referring to Clinton's plan, regardless of what Obama misrepresented.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 6, 2008 03:20 PMWill someone pleeeeease drive a stake through the heart of the Democratic race and end it.
Posted by Judith at May 6, 2008 03:32 PMhe said that at worst it would have little effect:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/is-obama-misrepresenting-what-i-said/
I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest.Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 03:33 PM
"if she beats him in indiana by a larger margin than he beats her in nc, that will be a huge meomentum storyline, but the demographics make that almost impossible."
In order for this to be a momentum swinger, she would have to beat him by a lot more in Indiana than his margin in NC, to make up for the larger delegate count there. Otherwise it doesn't really do anything for her.
Posted by Skiron at May 6, 2008 03:55 PMTurk,
Do you think there is ANY chance of this "holiday" becoming reality this summer?
My question now is how can any Supers throw their support to HRC given that there is NO chance of it passing while GWB is prez, much less for this summer which starts in a few weeks with the Memorial day weekend. She is shamelessly pandering no matter what Kruggers says.
So Krugman attempted to temper his statement on his favorite candidate, but it does little to take away his original words of it being "pointless." Krugman of all people surely understand econ 101 of Supply and Demand, and he knew exactly what he was referring to when he initially referenced Hillary's plan as pointless but not evil.
If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest.
Yes indeed, because the Obama camp are the only ones who hold the "dishonesty" label in this campaign. Indeed, Hillary has run a squeeky clean campaign this whole route, never once misrepresenting, misinterpreting, or obfuscating anything about our party's frontrunner, and she and McAuliffe's plans after Texas to throw the kitchen sink at Obama has been nothing but factual representation and unbiased discourse on their differences all around.........
Yep.
And it still changes little of the fact that her gas tax plan was nothing but complete pandering with little thought on the substance and overall impact.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 6, 2008 04:16 PMMisterOpus1 ,
You can't fault HRC for "little thought on the substance and overall impact" of her scheme.
She knows full well it AINT GONNA HAPPEN!
How's that for integrity?
Posted by chaz at May 6, 2008 04:33 PMWill someone pleeeeease drive a stake through the heart of the Democratic race and end it.
Posted by Judith at May 6, 2008 03:32 PM yES.
Yes. That will come in November. Please be patient.
chaz,
of course not. which is why the whole issue is silly- a harmless political pander. and one obama made in illinois- three times. much ado about nothing, once again.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 04:51 PMTurk,
Clowndom suits you, as it does all the hillary apologists.
To quote Rod Stewart, You wear it well.....".
Posted by chaz at May 6, 2008 05:00 PMchaz,
you're very smart.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 05:05 PMAnd as for "harmless", think again.
Pulling this stunt at this time is CLEAR evidence this hack is not qualified to hold the office she now holds, much less the one she is jettisoning her political legacy over.
"chaz,
you're very smart."
And you are a hapless pimp for an over the hill whore.
Good luck with that!
Posted by chaz at May 6, 2008 05:16 PMchaz,
you're banned for being an asshole and a misogynist.
Posted by at May 6, 2008 05:18 PM"you're banned for being an asshole and a misogynist."
Who is this anonymous admin with a prejudice against capital letters?
But seriously: anyone want some popcorn?
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 05:26 PMboggled,
did you see gingrich is terrified about a congressional meltdown, in november. even deep red seats seem to be turning blue, these days. ouch.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 05:27 PMIf that banning of chaz is serious, my hat is off to you TLC. FINALLY - banning the horrible sexist ranters here. Really - it is way past time. If you want this site to be anything close to a welcoming place for intellectual discussion, you really need to have some rules to deal with the some of the ugly people who have been posting completely over-the-top language. PLEASE. You know who I'm talking about.
And please - don't lecture me about free speech BS.
Posted by Reality at May 6, 2008 05:31 PM"...did you see gingrich is terrified about a congressional meltdown, in november."
Yes, I read about Newt's concern.
Possible, but given the success that "your" Pelosi-Congress has had in the past couple of years, I am not too concerned.
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 05:39 PMSo if Obama wins NC by a larger margin than Hillary wins IN, then what does that do for momentum?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 6, 2008 05:44 PMIf we still had to live by our wits on this planet then Chaz would have been a snack for the lions well before his teens. Banning was too good for him.
He was no Obama supporter. Or not one I would ever want in my camp.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 6, 2008 06:11 PMbob,
the demographics and expectations were that obama would win big in north carolina, and that indiana would be close. so, it wouldn't change the momentum in any way. a huge win in north carolina, which may be happening, could change it, though.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 06:13 PMBut the question remains:
Who is this anonymous admin with a prejudice against capital letters?
Named "Coward" comes to mind....
P.S. What day of the week is it Turkana?
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 06:13 PMgee, boggled, i always thought cowards were those who support wars they're unwilling to fight.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 06:21 PM"...wars they're unwilling to fight."
I have my DD-214 Turkana, have you found yours (yet)?
P.S. The sound you hear is a dozen Leftists Googling "DD-214."
P.S.S. What day of the week is it Turkana?
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 06:25 PMi don't support the war, boggled. i have no obligation to fight it. you do. maybe you should google "integrity," and learn something.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 06:29 PM"i have no obligation to fight it."
Nor do you have an obligation to thank those that have and do (presently and in the past)...but, then again, you know that....
"...maybe you should google 'integrity,' and learn something."
I am well familiar with the meaning of the word:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)"
You ARE familiar with this oath Turkana, RIGHT: what branch of the military did you serve in again?
P.S. I guess that (at this point) we know who the anonymous admin is (re: "Who is this anonymous admin with a prejudice against capital letters?")
P.S.S. Turkana, the "chicken-hawk" argument is passe in this election cycle. After all, your candidates have no standing in the military arena.
P.S.S.S. DD-214?
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 06:41 PMBut you do support the troops fighting the war?
“May God bless you and the United States of America.”
The anti Wright????
you talk in circles, as always, boggled. i strongly support the troops. as my many posts on the subject have made clear, bush doesn't. he abuses them, neglects them, and ignores their needs. supporting the troops is not the same as supporting a disastrous war. getting them out of that disastrous war is part of supporting the troops. you wouldn't understand that. to you, it's all about blind subservience to failed politicians who are failing the troops. whatever you may have done in the past, there's still a war on, and you could support it by going to help fight it. all you offer is excuses. sad.
Posted by Turkana at May 6, 2008 06:48 PMI wonder how many Republicans forced Obama on you?
Posted by peter at May 6, 2008 07:07 PM"i strongly support the troops."
Wow! Just wow!
How many times have you had an opportunity to post your "support the troops" and refused: I do think that I should check the archives.
"he abuses them, neglects them, and ignores their needs."
Personification does not accurately identify the problem: it is more likely the bureaucrats in charge. And you Leftist want to nationalize healthcare and let the Government be the provider...stupidity.
"supporting the troops is not the same as supporting a disastrous war."
Have you read the reports that Leftist opposition to the war (in Iraq) emboldens the terrorists...and by-the-way, Hamas has decided that "The Obama" is their candidate of choice.
"getting them out of that disastrous war is part of supporting the troops."
What was it Madeline Albright said...try Google (you need the practice).
"you wouldn't understand that."
I was nine years in the mlitary: Navy and Marine Corps. How long were you on active duty?
"to you, it's all about blind subservience to failed politicians who are failing the troops."
What was it President Clinton said about the military...something about "loathing"...try Google, you need the practice.
"whatever you may have done in the past, there's still a war on, and you could support it by going to help fight it."
I made my inquiries after 9/11 -- oh, I am sorry, you are still stuck on the election of 2000 -- but, in any event, as I have posted in the past: wrong training and (I am) too old.
"all you offer is excuses. sad."
Actually, having the wrong training and being too old is not an excuse...it is, unfortunately, a reality. However, by marriage, my "people" still serve...proudly and in the face of your disgust: remember, I am an immgrant from a troubled South-East Asian nation that your like once abandoned......
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 07:08 PM"that your like once abandoned...."
Rally, bags, TLC can't substitute for the psychotherapy you clearly need. It's a job for professionals. Isn't this covered by the VA? That Damn Bush as his budget cuts for our boys!
Just tell the nice Major about your recurring thoughts of abandonment and rage, Cpl. Bags, he's here to help....
Posted by euzoius at May 6, 2008 07:44 PMHow appropriate that Bagley quotes from the oath that mentions defending the constitution.
I suppose you support this administration that has done nothing but spit on our constitution for the last eight years.
Face it Bagley you guys had the reigns of our country and you couldn't do anything but f k it up.
Support the troops? You? Hah! I suppose you have done nothing but cheerlead them into a useless war and get over 4000 of them killed.
I can't say this enough bagley you thats right you don't support the troops and you have helped people spit on our reputation and good name for the last eight years. But your beyond help. Its time to let the adults take over for awhile and you can go back to listening to limbaugh and pretending you actually care about this country.
Go put another yellow ribbon on your hummer you ignorant bastard.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 6, 2008 07:55 PMOh yea one other thing. Quit saying "my people" like because you were in the military that gives you a pass to be stupid. There are ignorant people on the left and on the right and in the military. You don't get a pass because you were there as a matter of fact, you of all people should have learned wars should be waged as a last option and not as some excuse to show how tough you are.
Had enough of the you leftist don't support the troops bullshit. That dog won't hunt anymore. And if thats all you got then its all over.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 6, 2008 08:04 PM"And you are a hapless pimp for an over the hill whore."
This is the kind of immaturity expected of someone who doesn't allow for disagreement with their stance on issues. Good ridance.
Posted by Judith at May 6, 2008 08:16 PM"... the psychotherapy you clearly need."
Having a clear historical perspective is not something that requires psychotherapy. (But it may be the case that denying this historical reality is a prerequisite for [said] counseling.).
"'that your like once abandoned....'"
And your followers did. You will be hard-pressed to find history to the contrary. (Oh, check that, you folks are seriously into revisionist histry.)
"...Cpl. Bags..."
Do you even know what "cpl" means? (It is a loaded question...be careful.)
"How appropriate that Bagley quotes from the oath that mentions defending the constitution....I suppose you support this administration that has done nothing but spit on our constitution for the last eight years."
I suppose that means that the other hundreds of thousands serving in the military are the same, and do abrogate their oath: quick, quick...now tell me how you "suppot the troops!"
"'Support the troops? You? Hah! I suppose you have done nothing but cheerlead them into a useless war and get over 4000 of them killed.'"
Ibid. (Look up the meaning of the word "ibid" -- you have the spelling....)
"Go put another yellow ribbon on your hummer you ignorant bastard..."
Eric in Austin: I do not drive a hummer. I do have yellow ribbons on the "old oak tree" (thanks to my wife): what are you doing? Saving spit?
And, thank God, that Austin is not Texas!
"You don't get a pass because you were there as a matter of fact..."
Where you there...?
And how long did you spend as a refugee, Eric in Austin: my perspective is larger than you could possibly imagine. Care to discuss?
What I find amazing is the invective of Leftists: it almost as if the whimpy-ness of Leftists requires the diminishing of the "brave" to disguise the coward (Leftists); to elevate Leftist status. An equality of outcome; diminish one to raise the other. So we end up with you -- the anonymous admin -- a forever coward. It is something that you cannot avoid.
Thanks to TLC for the bandwidth. The lesser intellects may now engage in the usual mutual masturbation exercise: Turkana, that does include cowards...what day of the week is it?
Posted by Bagley at May 6, 2008 08:38 PMTurkana's a retard.
Posted by D at May 7, 2008 02:10 AM