http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

Does anyone else wonder where this Georgia computer store owner gets his computers?

http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2008/03/walocaust-denial.html

Apologies for the previous letter. I attached the wrong link.

If Mark Penn had been two different people in the Clinton campaign, this would have been an example of "Anarchic Hand Syndrome", a medical and political condition where the right hand continually contradicts what the left hand is doing.

Unfortunately for the Clintons, they hired a consultant who was a one man example of the disease, taking money from both parties of the Columbian trade issue.

If consultants are over-priced, no one forces anyone to hire them. See the beautiful Anarchic Hand Syndrome example of Jack Abramoff lobbying for both sides of the Indian Casino legislation.

http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2008/04/mark-penn-jack-abramoff-and-anarchic.html

Throughout his term, the concensus among historians was that Reagan was one of the lowest tier presidents.

Ditto for Bush I, Ford and Nixon.

Clinton and (ahem) Carter were spared these appraisals.

Doesn't this say more about historians - a group typically living in a sterile, tenured academic environment - than it does about presidents?

There's one little problem with the idea that Senator Clinton is above it all, wants to call off the dawgs, and this is all a Republican/Media conspiracy....

Why is Senator Clinton insisting on a roll-call vote?

Biden's reference to his family tragedy was as scripted as his opening and closing remarks. Does anyone really believe it had a place in the debate, other than an opportunity to play the Victim Card?

Palin might be crazy as hell, but she did the right thing by not acknowledging that cheap, tawdry moment.

Speak for yourself.

Self Righteousness doesn't equal being right.

Change is not the same as improvement.

Also, this is not the first time that voters have experienced this warm, holy glow. Read some old newspaper accounts (and Rolling Stone) about Jimmy Carter's post-election transfiguration.

Anyone want to place a bet on whether the anti-school voucher candidate, Barack Obama, will be willing to send his OWN kids to the D.C. public schools?

With a minimal amount of Googling for the term "Classical Liberalism", one can learn that liberalism corresponds with increased personal freedom, increased economic freedom, J.S. Mill's "On Liberty", and the concept of "That which governs best, governs least". Michael Lind should have known this.

The government that Obama is about to inherit will have little connection to classical liberalism, and much to do with feudalism and mercantilism. Read a week's worth of economic or political journalism from the UK, where Liberalism is still used in its original sense.

So if the Statists are looking for a new term to defile, I hope that they'll leave "liberal" to the libertarians, and continue to call themselves Progressives. Or Statists. Or BiPartisans. Or money-flushers. Or bailouters. Or sheep.

"That's really what she boasted about to the Times – the fact that she could immediately step up and replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.... because she's a Kennedy. I've also been alarmed, in Salon letters threads about this issue and elsewhere on the blogosphere, at the extent to which even some left-liberals think that's a fine rationale for a candidacy. Do we really care so little about politics as a calling right now? Are we honestly happy to say it's the province of rich folks with celebrity names, and hopefully some noblesse oblige?"

Does the irony of those sentences not make anyone else break out with the giggles?

Perhaps there's too much verbiage in the way. Let's rephrase it. JFK's inexperienced daughter dares to think she could step in and replace Bill Clinton's inexperienced wife?

Why do New York left-liberals seldom acknowledge that Clinton was given a "safe" state to run from simply because her previous office-holding experience was equal to that of Caoline Kennedy?

"The story of how a particular kind of mortgage loan proved to be the undoing of Wall Street and the catalyst for the end of a period of sustained global economic growth is at once insanely complex and, by now, almost too familiar. We now know that dereliction of duty ran rampant at every step of the chain. Mortgage borrowers lied about their income. Mortgage lenders failed to check the credit-worthiness of borrowers."

No mention there of the community reinvestment act? What is the point in requiring any of the above if the regulators declare that "You WILL issue mortgages to THIS group of people?"

r.e. Greenspan's infamous quote, which is now being trumpeted the way Fundamentalist Preachers throw around John 3:16 - Almost immediately afterward, Greenspan declared that the market has already corrected itself far beyond the means of any regulatory body. If Greenspan's utterances are like Holy Writ, then that line needs to be taken into consideration also.

Neglecting the root cause of our current economic mess, and failing to look at Greenspan's intent are both reflections of the near-absolute dishonesty of this article.

Leaving out those two facts

"The president-elect's support of the bank bailout is payback to his wealthy Wall Street supporters."

What the hell did anyone else think it was? A recipe for English muffins? A jar of mayonnaise buried at the corner of 4th and Elm? A coffin-handle?

Good Lord in heaven....

Wow.

Eliminate the projects that crossed state lines.

Then look at how many of these are in what will soon be known as "The Blue/Bailout States".

Once you get on the government teat, it's hard to get weaned, isn't it?

If someone believed that NAFTA was harmful, that abortion should be permitted, that "activist" judges were a bad idea, that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and that the surge wouldn't work, then it would be ok to have said "I hope Bush fails".

If Bush had "succeeded" the whole country would have succeeded?

Godalmighty, what a stupid quote.