From TPM -
"...Hillary Clinton's remarks that Obama "is having trouble winning over blue collar "white" voters... "white Americans"...
So much for a VP slot!
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 9, 2008 03:15 AMjohn mc cain's wife refuses to release her tax forms.
this from the "maverick, straight talking, voter transparency, campaign reform, using his wife's jet at discount prices," media darling...
the dems were castigated because of this issue, why is it she gets a pass?
what msm?
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 04:52 AMCaller on cspan: he'll vote for McCain because "McCain is the only one who understands preemptive war and why it works and the only one who understands that we need to undermine our liberties to protect our security."
Yes, undermine. Yes, preemptive war works. Good God we're in trouble.
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 05:04 AMCindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.
"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate."
Howard Dean said "Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband.
Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."
Well, someone needs to explain to Cindy that her private life is over.
Can't say I disagree with this:
"We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics," wrote Mark Salter, McCain's longtime chief of staff and co-author of five books. "First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."
Here we go kiddies. Get out the popcorn.
Over the past few weeks, McCain has pushed the idea that the terrorist organization Hamas is supporting Obama's presidential campaign. Today, Obama hit back at McCain for the smear by association.
"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says I am not going to run that kind of politics, and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."
"So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name calling in this debate."
Will Thomas reported on the first example of McCain's camp passing the smear through a fundraising letter with the subject line: "Hamas Weighs In On U.S. Presidential Election." It also has a nice breakdown of McCain's repeated promises to run a respectful campaign.
McCain later repeated the Hamas smear himself, saying "It's clear who Hamas wants to be the next President."
When someone calls for unity and change and hope but his supporters make anyone not supporting him feel like the worst kind of democrat...yeah, I aint too interested in being involved in that kind of unity, hope, change (shit, racism's been around since the inception of this country and I see no change in the "race card" being called in every instance of disagreement, just more of the same ole, same ole.)
Posted by Sharon at May 9, 2008 05:18 AMjudithone, are you the hot young judith? or the oldhotjudith, or am i just confused???? ;)
cg:
i watched the interview between wolf and obama last nite on the situation room. it was in reply to mc cain relating an obama victory to a victory for hamas. obama called it for the smear that it was, iterated his stand that hamas is a terrorist organization, then, pointed out mc cain's assertations of running a campaign free of mud (haha to that) then stated, i paraphrase, that he lost his bearings, in regard to his claim of a debate above the fray.
i'm sure the repubs will try to spin it the way bohner (sp?) wants, but it will be hard to do when the interview gets replayed in full.
btw, good morning all...
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 05:20 AMAnthony, I agree that the "bearings" comment was not a jab at McCain's age, rather a jab at McCain's supposed moral compass. But I still agree with that statement Salter made about how Obama functions. He gives these sort of backhanded compliments that are really attacks on his opponents and pretends to run a campaign free from that sort of thing.
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 05:41 AMHillarians should go read Prof Gary Sick's guest editorial at Cole's Informed Comment today.
It's about Hillary's bellicose "obliterate Iran" remark, and argues that this is not merely (more) contemptible pandering, but an intentional policy of isolation and refusal to engage Iran, exactly the policy Team Clinton pulled throughout the 90s (formulated by the same man, Martin Indyk), which unilaterist Bushco has refined to "perfection".
Hillary is a Beltway Insider utterly beholden and weighed down with the hopeless baggage and approaches of Bill's various policies. Again, why people of the Left are so desirous of literally re-running the adminstration of a prior president is simply baffling to me.
The Clintons had their day (8 years actually). In a nation of 300 million, that really is quite adequate.
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 05:44 AMdon't they all cg?
i'm not saying he's the cleanest thing out there. i never did. in order to seem tough, he does need to counterpunch, no? when he didn't his clock got cleaned. best way to do so is with a velvet shiv, imo.
he needs to, if he becomes the nominee, cuz willie horton will be nothing compared to what the repubs do to him come september... make no mistake, race, religion, and bitter, will all rear its head come the ge.
he was gushing in his praise of hilary though during the same interview. genuine or no, i'm sure it will be debated, an olive branch just the same.
Hey anthony! Yeah, McCain has been bumbling along making a fool of himself, and no one's been paying attention. Time to lash back. We need the people who make the lists of lies and crimes to abandon the Hillary/Obama oppo posts and start churning out the McCain talking points. Luckily, the public's getting ready for Memorial Day and will soon to diving into summer. They'll probably miss the last struggles of the primary anyhow, so let it finish the way we know it's going to finish and move on. The primary may be out of our hands, but the GE isn't yet.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 05:50 AMIt's the hypocrisy, anthony. Yes they all do it, but they should just come out and do it. It's reasonable to point out your opponents differences and weaknesses, not just on policy, but in judgment, character, the ability to make decisions, the way in which decisions are made, etc. Don't pretend all that stuff is "distraction" and then engage in it yourself. Admit that how and why your opponent makes decisions (they're beholden to special interests, they're pandering, they're delusional, whatever) is important. Clinton came right out and said "I think this stuff is important" and "attacked." Obama says "it's just distraction" and "attacks." That's what I don't like.
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 05:52 AMAnthony, I'm the old hot Judith or JudithOne.
When someone asks me how old I am I say, "I'm old enough to know what I want, and young enough to get it."
Iamcoyote, here's a start on that list of lies:
John McCain, of Straight Talk Express has a long history of issuing heartfelt denials of things that were actually true.
He denied ever talking with Kerry about his leaving the GOP to be Kerry's '04 running mate -- then later admitted he had, insisting: "Everybody knows that I had a conversation."
He denied admitting that he didn't know much about economics, even though he'd said exactly that to the Wall Street Journal. And the Boston Globe. And the Baltimore Sun.
He denied ever having asked for a budget earmark for Arizona, even though he had. On the record.
He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.
And those are just the outright denials. He's also repeatedly tried to spin away statements he regretted making (see: 100-year war, Iraq was a war for oil, etc.).
The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of "agents of intolerance" Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not "in good conscience support" them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife's jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the "safe" neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor... and the embracing of the disastrous policies of a man he so abhorred he would not vote for him (and evidently did not vote for).
HuffingtonPost
Posted by Judith at May 9, 2008 06:00 AMQuestion remains, why do murdering terrorists prefer Obama?
Posted by onar at May 9, 2008 06:02 AMcg: good point, though i think he did that on the gas tax issue. he admitted to voting on it in il, then acknowedged his mistake due to big oil raising prices. i'm sure now the campaign is winding down, the negativity/ hypocrisy on both sides will die down. i don't think i read your last point right though. are you stating hrc has not engaged in those tactics? its the end of the day for me, so i could be adding some meaning that isn't implied on your part...
iac: buenos dias. getting kinda disappointed here though, the vehemence, the name calling, (insert negative adjective here) etc. echoing the current split in the party. i started reading this post when i was stateside 2004, favored it over atrios, digby, and the daily kos, it seems we were all united against gwb then. now, i can't believe some are actually going to vote for gwb III to spite the probable nominee; knowing that a vote that way will hasten our country's path to ruin...
Smarter trolls please who don't lie.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 06:11 AMAnthony, "evil reigns where good men do nothing," or throw away their vote.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 06:13 AMonar:
u can't be that dumb.
see the hotone above.
i will say it real s-l-o-w...the best recruitment tool for al q, is johnny mac and gwb.
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 06:13 AMMcSame's wife is not running. I agree with her on not releasing them. Releasing them might affect members of her family and the business.
Posted by JohnT at May 9, 2008 06:16 AMi agree judith.
the question is, do others?
two scotus positions, the bill of rights, world reputation, habeas corpus, r.v.w. would all go away under a mc cain administration...
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 06:16 AMABC reports Obama has now gathered more superdelegate support than Clinton and is poised to extend that lead. Indiana now reports the final vote tally, with Clinton winning by less than one percent of the vote. Given the Limberger Chaos vote for Clinton, it's clear that Obama won the Democratic vote in Indiana. This thing is over folks. I'm really sad for all the uneducated white guys out there, and the Women with Cajones who are now stuck with a 71 year old warmonger as their loser candidate. But I'm really pleased with the Majority of Democrats who now have a Change on the way. Oh yes, and I'm sorry, Bill, that you won't get to spend any more quality time in the Oval Office.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 06:18 AMAnthony, well I guess if you are out to prove a point, you can justify your actions.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 06:23 AMIs Dean so dumb that he thinks a husband can force his wife to do something.
Posted by JohnT at May 9, 2008 06:26 AMjudith:
what do you mean by that?
i agree with that statement.
i asked if others believed it also...
did you take offense?
Hillarians should go read Prof Gary Sick's guest editorial at Cole's Informed Comment today.
Interesting reading of Clinton's comments.
Sick says a lot about how Clinton's comment can be interpreted in light of her continued involvement with Indyk. Interestingly, he doesn't have much to say about what he thinks Obama will do.
From Sick's post;
As my friends know well, I have been a stout defender of Hillary Clinton's campaign from the very beginning, while maintaining my admiration for Barack Obama. (In the most recent case, I was impressed by the fact that Obama refused to rise to the bait, while she accepted the hypothetical and ran with it.)
Of course Obama didn't really not take the bait because he continued on in his comments to say that as president he would do everything in his power, including the use of military force, to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, he wasn't as frank (or quite as pandering some might say) as Clinton but hey, maybe Obama has some great alternative plan that Sick's gonna critique for us next?
Sick continues;
The chance for a fresh start - for "change" in the current political lexicon - was to me the great hope of this presidential campaign. But Clinton's recent remarks, and the underlying policy from which they apparently sprang, are evidence that, at least on this issue, we might only look forward to more of the same under a Clinton presidency. In that sense, I think we would be losing one of the great chances of this generation to begin to fashion a more sensible policy in a region that I care about greatly.
Nope. Nothing to say about what Obama's gonna do but offer the hope of "change" and an as yet undefined "more sensible policy".
The idea behind dual containment was to simply maintain the status quo for two reasons; to maintain stability in the region for obvious economic reasons and to prevent any one power from gathering to much control over the regions oil resources. In the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union this was relatively cheap. The actions of the Bush administration have basically blown "dual containment" out of the water, at least for the forseeable future and have made our continuing involvement in the region vastly more expensive. We can't maintain our current posture there indefinitely. So I think Sick's concerns about the nature of a Clinton policy in the region are a bit over thought.
It's all academic anyway since she's not going to be president.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2008 06:30 AMif it was this: "see the hotone above," comment.
that was a reference to his viewing your statement on trolls...
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 06:30 AMAnthony, nope, no offense. I thought you were agreeing with the "evil reigns...."
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 06:38 AMYou know, for eight years we have talked about the 'intolerance' of the GOP. Democrats have built a foundation on the principal that there is no room in the Party for 'intolerance.' Sad to see so much of it now.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 06:43 AMyep, i was...
read your last comment in a different light.
been doing that all day, must be the sunshine here, its distracting... :)
so, without platitudes, how do you suggest our party can heal this schism, and can it be done before november?
i think that is where our focus should be on between now and november.
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 06:44 AMare you stating hrc has not engaged in those tactics?
Anthony, I'm saying Clinton has never painted herself as someone who would "stay above the fray". She's always said she can "take on" the republican attack machine, which sort of means she can punch back. Obama has shown he can punch back too, but he pretends he's just the victim trying to protect himself and he would never say a bad word about anyone if he wasn't forced to, and half the time his attacks are wrapped in a compliment, which is just disingenuous. So Obama attacks when he says he won't and as a result comes across as a hypocrite and weak.
I think it's going to be very easy for the republicans to paint him as weak--they've started with the comparison to Carter and saying Hamas wants him to be president. No one could do that to Clinton. But that's a different topic.
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 06:58 AMI think the party will heal. People change their opinions overnight. Obama, for all the things I don't like about him, is a great speaker and will say nice things about Clinton (apparently has already started.) Clinton will say nice things about Obama (she also has started). It'll be a nice little love-fest. Clinton will do what she said (I hope) and work hard to get Obama elected. We probably just need to hide Bill for a few months--no telling what he'll say or do.
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 07:03 AM"McSame's wife is not running. I agree with her on not releasing them. Releasing them might affect members of her family and the business."
John T., how so?
The GOP harped on John Kerry until his wife released hers. Besides, why should Bill Clinton release his, under this theory. He's no longer running for office. Is it because McCain doesn't want anyone to know exactly how rich they are?
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if she files a separate return or not. Financial ties of close family members to a candidate are legitimate potential conflicts of interest that should be revealed.
Cindy is an heiress to a multi-billion dollar fortune! No way will voters accept not knowing who might be pulling the strings in the future of Pres. McCain. Rightwing talk radio had a field day with Teresa Heinz Kerry. They made repeated smears against Sen. Kerry and his alleged ties to the ketchup fortune. They made those claims even though they made no sense. Teresa Kerry was forced to release her returns - revealing nothing of interest, just her financial ties to the huge non-profit charity The Heinz Foundation, which she chairs, and their investments.
Talk about Elitism.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 07:03 AMAnthony, I have no idea on how to heal our Party. Passions run so deep among many. However, I have always believed that all attitudes begin at the top and filter down. Having said that, maybe the healing begins with with Obama and Hillary.
Posted by Judith at May 9, 2008 07:09 AMFurthermore, Cindy saying she will never divulge her tax returns smacks of snobbery, as in belonging to the elite class who certainly don't have to show their tax returns to us bottom feeders.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 07:18 AMcarter went over there with much u.s. consternation, and brokered the release of an israeli prisoner, and hamas suggested a 10 year truce. more results in a weekend than 8 years of the current admin. that point seems to be forgotten.
obama punched back, and hard against the hamas jab. i guess this primary has hardened the "hope," candidate.
mc cain's mid east policy, more of the same...
bombing, death, destruction, recruitment of more terrorists, etc. no economic policy, and no health care policy. i think the electorate will see this, but stranger things have happened...
cnn's speculating that bill is holding out for a deal in the next adminstration.... wow...
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 07:19 AMAnthony, I have no idea on how to heal our Party.
Fuck the Party, they're the ones who didn't have the foresight to nip this mess in the bud. I think they've been more than happy to be the center of attention for so long. I think it'll take time for us to heal, but it can be done, and we don't have to wait until Obama or Hillary do it. We just have to stop letting the Russerts and the Matthews' dictate what to be mad at. Start being skeptical of the "news" again, and stop falling for the gotchas. It's hard, I know. But if I'm willing to try, anything's possible, right?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 07:25 AMjudithone:
so far i hear crickets from the msm concerning her statements. then again, we hear crickets concerning anything mentioning mc cain anyway.
on cnn, they had a reporter on from reuters, stating obama needed to follow up to clarify if his remarks were in reference to his age, but no mention of mc cain needing to clarify if he felt the terrorists wanted obama in the wh. the irony is too rich to describe.
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 07:27 AMiac:
roger that!!!
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 07:28 AMonar, it depends. If you're an al Qaeda in Iraq you prefer McCain, because he'll continue the war for a hundred years. Once the Americans leave even the Sunni will have no use for the Arabian extremists. Likewise, bin Laden prefers McCain.
If you're living in Iran, you probably prefer anyone over that woman who's threatening to kill sixty million people.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 9, 2008 07:29 AMI guess that is the difference between GOP and Democrats. We fight because of the diversity of our Party. The GOP are always lockstep and goose stepping to the whim of those who control the power. They are told what to think (think trolls here or right-wing media), and we (God forbide) think for ourselves.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 07:30 AMWe fight because of the diversity of our Party.
Exactly. And so many things have been broken and neglected over the past eight years, we all have ideas on what needs to be fixed first. There's bound to be clashes.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 07:42 AMBob, I love you, but:
If you're an al Qaeda in Iraq you prefer McCain, because he'll continue the war for a hundred years. Once the Americans leave even the Sunni will have no use for the Arabian extremists. Likewise, bin Laden prefers McCain.
al Quaeda and Bin Laden don't prefer one reactionary gas bag to another. All they care about is that we elect reactionary gas bags. Party membership is irrelevant.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 9, 2008 07:49 AM"Fuck the Party, they're the ones who didn't have the foresight to nip this mess in the bud."
Iamcoyote that I agree with.
Obama and Hillary need to ask Democrats to put their differences aside and to forcus on the defeat of one John McCain in November. Perhaps this would help heal the strife and turmoil in the Party. I suppose that will come once this fucking process is over.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 07:50 AM
I suppose that will come once this fucking process is over.
I think so. But think of all the money that's been spent - a lot of people are quite happy for the strife to continue since it's filling their pockets.
That's a load of crap.
Hear! Hear! And it's a rightwing talking point, as well as just plain silly. Why bother even going there?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 07:55 AM"But think of all the money that's been spent - a lot of people are quite happy for the strife to continue since it's filling their pockets."
Iamcoyote, you mean like the Liberal Media?
Posted by Judith at May 9, 2008 08:02 AMOh yeah. And, as much as everyone reveres him, Olberman. With Dems on the rise, so has his career, and it's in his best interest to have this race go on in the summer when no one's usually watching tv. Remember, the overriding concern for all of them is not what's good for the country, it's what's good for them. And they're loving it.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 08:16 AMI decided not to read the other postings in this discussion grouping.
But I do think that the Obama Supporters are prematurely celebrating.
Latest polls out of Kentucky and West Virginia indicate Hillary is winning big. (Obama is not even campaigning in West Virginia. He hasn't the nomination locked up.)
The leads that current polls have for Hillary include being up by 34% in Kentucky, and up 38% in WVA.
That doesn't spell "success" for Obama.
56% of those surveyed in WVA will vote for Hillary according to this report.
http://www.dailymail.com/News/Kanawha/200805070134?page=2&build=cache
In Kentucky, 62% said that they would vote for Hillary over Obama.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/surveyusa-kentucky-obama-clinton-may3to5-2008.pdf
The DNC is going to take notice of this.
"Remember, the overriding concern for all of them is not what's good for the country, it's what's good for them. And they're loving it."
Iamcoyote, remember "Greed is good."
"The DNC is going to take notice of this." the only way the DNC will take notice is if Clinton doesn't win by those margins.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2008 08:54 AMRemember when the U.S. was offered million of dollars in relief aid for victims of hurricane Katrina and it went unclaimed?
I find it the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. to be critical of the military junta in Myanmar for aid efforts stalling.
Stupids... we did the exact same thing!!
I decided not to read the other postings in this discussion grouping.
Gosh, and we worked so hard on it, too. You sure you don't want to take a look?
"Greed is good."
Oh yeah. That's been the Republicans' mantra ever since, hasn't it? No wonder the "news" has turned into "infotainment." There's no profit in "truth," but "truthiness" sells big!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 09:06 AMGeneral Electric is having a rough year and needs to sell more war toys to Bush III.
Watch for MSNBS to start in on Obama once they finally get rid of Hillary.
Keith will have to ease into it like he did with Hillary, to keep most of his viewers.
Tweety-dee and Timmeh-dumb will jump right in.
Watch for McShame to get a semi-pass.
Well golly gee Iamcoyote, who wants to hear the truth when truthiness speaks to so many more people in this Country.
Seven of Six, it's the old story with this Administration. If they are doing it, they are pointing a finger in another direction.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 09:46 AMI posted this earlier, but wanted to make sure you know that Iamcoyote told me about your Mom.
Seven of Six, I am so terribly sorry about your Mom. We had the exact same situation with my Mom, who also took care of my Father who had Alzheimer's disease. It is so typical that the caretaker doesn't take care of themselves or their needs, and often are reluctant to ask for help.
Taking care of your Father is a 24/7 job with no breaks, as you know. If she doesn't take care of herself, she won't be able to take care of him, but sometimes it is hard to convince them of that fact. It is also emotionally exhausting as well as physical. I hope she continues to feel better and is well soon.
Have you contacted the Alzheimer's Association. They are absolutely great when it comes to helping the caretaker and their needs.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 09:50 AMTIKI, you're right, it's gonna get crazy. I can never stand more than 5 minutes of the cable "news" tripe. Never could. Those freaks drive me batty.
SoS, the death toll just keeps going up, and we can't be bothered to try to help. Katrina seems to now be the pattern for all disasters. What a sick world. I blame Bush/Cheney for making it like this. grrr.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 10:09 AMHere's another Family Values arrest. Keep 'em coming.
WASHINGTON (May 8) - Rep. Vito Fossella of New York acknowledged on Thursday that he fathered a child from an extramarital affair, answering questions that arose from his arrest on drunken driving charges last week.
Rep. Vito Fossella of New York acknowledged Thursday that he has a 3-year-old daughter from an extramarital affair. The revelation came after the Republican congressman, who has three children with his wife, was arrested on drunken driving charges.
"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry," said Fossella, a Republican, who has three children with his wife in Staten Island, N.Y.
Fossella is the only Republican member of Congress from New York City, and the paternity revelation could lead to the loss of a seat in Congress at a time when the House GOP faces the possibility of a second grim November of election setbacks
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 11:08 AM"SoS, the death toll just keeps going up, and we can't be bothered to try to help. Katrina seems to now be the pattern for all disasters. What a sick world. I blame Bush/Cheney for making it like this. grrr."
It's all about appearances with this Administration. Does it look good, does it sound good, will people buy it, then let's go with it.
Posted by JudithOne at May 9, 2008 11:12 AMFuck the Party, they're the ones who didn't have the foresight to nip this mess in the bud. I think they've been more than happy to be the center of attention for so long. I think it'll take time for us to heal, but it can be done, and we don't have to wait until Obama or Hillary do it. We just have to stop letting the Russerts and the Matthews' dictate what to be mad at. Start being skeptical of the "news" again, and stop falling for the gotchas. It's hard, I know. But if I'm willing to try, anything's possible, right?
Rich considering you were one of the main offenders in creating this environment.
Lets see what was that that you called me almost immediately on my reentry here? Oh yeah, vile misogynist followed by sexist. What were you responding to? A comment about asswipes at TMC. I wasn't aware asswipes was a sexist term especially since I was applying it to Lieberman supporters.
And I do hope snarkyshark keeps his word and never comes back.
I never said that, I said supporters of the democratic nominee shouldn't subject themselves to the abuse of people like yourself. And that we should check in from time to time to see if it was better. But you have been intentionally mis comprehending my posts since the beginning, so no surprise there.
Now I see you are playing all sweetness and light, so I can only assume you were warned by back channel, or woke-up and realized how you were marginalizing yourself.
But hypocritical you are. And probably the only thing more cowardly than your call for banning is to sit around and talk shit about someone when they are not here to defend themselves.
The word was for both of us to tone it down. If Steve wanted to ban me, he could at any time. Notice how I'm not banned?
The only thing more irritating than your big reversal in outlook is your pretensions that you speak for the owner of this blog. Don't you have your own blog you can power-trip on?
I'm in no mood to forgive that.
And I'm in no mood to forgive your drunken drive over that cross. One of the lowest things I have ever witnessed.
I asked an avowed feminist at another board to take a look at that whole train-wreck to see if I was out of line. Her opinion was I was responding in kind. I could have been more graceful, but then the same was said about you.
As a caveat, she was pissed off about women throwing out sexism so cheaply as you did, because it lessened the impact. Something you never seemed to grasp.
So the plan was to not come back, but since you cant let it go, I will drop in from time to time to let any potential newcomers know how you really are.
I got a whole bunch of juicy quotes from you to back it up.
Better would have been to just have left it alone, but I doubt you can help yourself.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 9, 2008 11:26 AMYou poor thing SnarkyShart. You think it's all about you, don't you? Face it, we're just not into you.
Fossella is the only Republican member of Congress from New York City, and the paternity revelation could lead to the loss of a seat in Congress at a time when the House GOP faces the possibility of a second grim November of election setbacks
I dunno, JudithPrime, (heehee), when has a Republican been kicked out for sexcapades? A Dem will leave on his own; a 'puke? He'll stay forever. I sure hope the last part is true, though, and November is grim for the 'pukes in the House.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 11:45 AMYou poor thing SnarkyShart. You think it's all about you, don't you? Face it, we're just not into you.
Then why do you keep talking about me?
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 9, 2008 11:56 AMIn the spirit of unity, I am willing to offer a compromise. Lets see if you can be big enough to take it.
Don't talk about me, to me or around me and I will do the same. I only know you were talking because it showed up on teh Google.
If I come in here and post in the future, it will be about McCain. I have nothing left to say on this primary crap. I doubt anything said about McCain will be "sexist".
Lets see how evolved you really are? Accept this and its done.
Or not, and show how shallow your conciliatory tone really is.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 9, 2008 12:01 PMHey, you're not a dickweed because you're an Obama fan. You're a dickweed because you're a dickweed. Not much I can do about that but point and laugh. I do thank you for reminding me of the Mall Ninja, though! Conciliatory enough for ya?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2008 12:44 PMDid I insult you in the 12:01 PM post? It was a yes or no question, and requires no elaboration.
Yes or no?
You can lead the way towards true reconciliation, or you can hold on to your childish need to insult me which accomplishes exactly nothing.
I don't expect you to kiss my ass, and I ain't gonna kiss yours. A simple cease fire for the good of the community. Are you up to it?
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 9, 2008 01:34 PMAnthony:
I am the young Judith - I am new. Trying to differntiate myslef for the Judith who was here before me.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:22 PM
Anthony:
I am the young Judith - I am new. Trying to differentiate myself from the prior Judith who was here before me.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:23 PM
snarkyshark - jeez, how old are you?
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:24 PM