Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Salon, in its general trending towards Clinton, first accuse Obama of wanting to 'invade' Pakistan and now says he has considered 'preemptively' attacking the state of Pervez Musharref. Both of these 'frames' (as your own war room calls Salon's 'analysis' of Obama's platform) demonstrate a lack of understanding that has been most closely echoed by the likes of Mitt Romney. The fact of the matter is that Musharref does not control northwestern Pakistan, it is effectively an unrecognized rogue state, and this morning, on Meet the Press, Secretary Gates implicitly conceded that he too would recommend a quick and focused strike on the area if there were actionable intelligence regarding the whereabouts of high-level Al Qaeda operatives and Musharref proved as uncooperative as he has been up to this point. As Obama's campaign itself has been effectively framing this issue, what candidate, beyond Congressmen Paul and Kucinich, would NOT order such a strike if it meant taking out bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. Clinton's flaccid insistence that 'Presidents just don't talk about that' only betrays her Cheney-like proclivity towards executive elitism and secrecy. Give me a president who recognizes reality and is honest with the American people over that, and give me an intellectually honest Salon over the superficial and blatantly slanted coverage that we've been given since this race began.
That you only use unflattering pictures of Republican candidates.
"I've been waiting for this," she told the crowd. "This gives us a real sense of reality with my being here."
But what could have less of a "sense of reality" than that very phrase? She's so programmed, false, and manipulative. How anyone can consider voting for her is beyond me. Why Salon adores her (and it clearly does) is equally beyond my understanding. She has no committment except to herself. She'd be very bad for the country.
Hillary needs two shining gold front teeth! Who said, was it Kuniichi, "that it is a cardinal sin to give Clinton a reason to smile?"
Or was it Hillary who said, "No politician is as stupid as 'um look?
Smile.
I thought that they chose a nice photo for this article. I don't think that Hillary would find it unflattering.
The photo that accompanied this article (of a laughing Hillary Clinton) made her look candid, unguarded, and human -- for a change. I don't care that it made her look like a "chipmunk", as another reader observed. And I disagree that such a photo is bad for Clinton's image. On the contrary, it is very good for her. Everyone knows by now: her biggest problem with the voting public is her hyper-controlled, false, manipulative manner. A more relaxed, unguarded, and humorous Clinton wold be formidable candidate indeed.
For crying out loud, we've had a two-term (male) president who looks like a chimpanzee. It doesn't seem to have hurt his electability any.
If Clinton has a not un-chipmunkish look about her when she's in a genuine good humor, fine. Do we really require of female politicians that they look like models?
Give me a politician, male or female, who is sincere and funny-looking over beautiful and false any day.
That the bloggers rejected third party fantasies is the most important development. If the naivete that led to the disaffection and distrust of Dean's supporters is allowed to take over again, it will prove difficult to correct at a later date. (I suspect Dean himself could have made a difference in this respect, but I haven't seen his speech yet.)
Also, I'm not sure from the reports so far that Clinton made any enemies, at least, than she already has for accepting lobby money. There is a large netroots contingent that's not going to accept her under any circumstances, regardless of whether she wins the nomination--and her not catering to them is in some ways a sign of strength.
That she seems to have been embraced, despite the policy, is what is most encouraging. The gap based on her experience and acumen seems actually to be rising amongst the realists, rather than the cynics who vote based on the polls and for personal reasons instead of in their own best interests. If blogland gives her a fair shot, I think that's all she's asked.
"The only candidate who was booed louder than Clinton at Saturday's presidential debate was the unlikely left-winger Dennis Kucinich. ... "Why don't people vote?" Kucinich asked, rhetorically. "It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties."
The booing immediately drowned Kucinich out. He had committed a cardinal sin, demeaning the Democratic Party before a crowd that works countless unpaid hours a week to make the party stronger."
when HRC is elected and she explains why we need to keep military bases in Iraq, I hope the "Kossacks" look at themselves when they look for who to blame. My guess is they will just rationalize and "explain" her wisdom to the people who don't see a difference between the two parties.
Dennis Kucinich is right. The Bloggers can feel great that they are a part of the party ----- can you say co-opted? Third party anyone? The Dems are just the soft underbelly of the republican party.
who cares about the photo? Why do commenters care about this photo? This is not so far removed from being preoccupied with Edwards's hair.
Can't we discuss more substantial things, like the fact that nobody asked her anything about the war?
(were they told not to?)
I am still constantly amazed at the changes in direction the energy takes over at DKOS. One day it seems that it's get a Democrat elected or else, and the next day the mob is ready to burn down the castle, when the Congress passes a last minute deal on FISA. SOme days I get very low thinking the mob is just happy they got to the Superbowl. So what if we lose?
Then they get their back up about the CONSTITUTION.
In the end that is the most emotional issue for the bloggers.
Everybody looks like a chipmunk some time or other. Maybe this is just part of an evolution to becoming a Velveteen Rabbit.
Remember folks, "I like Ike" was once a campaign button. He won.
Approachable is priceless!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
