Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You don't seem to object to the fact that Obama's Second Amendment support is also pinned on.
Also, I don't understand why you are so worried about Bill Clinton. Hillary is already on record as saying that he will not have a cabinet post. He cannot be vice-president. I imagine that he may have a role much like hers in his administration.
I blame "salon.com" for Bittergate. I blame you, Joan, for your stupid, intellectually vapid and inexplicable defense of a loser candidate. Obama is going to win, Clinton is going to lose. Get it together, salon.com, because you will will share the blame for President McCain as you share the blame for touting this non-starter of a story.
It seems by your snarky, angry comments that you don't like what this site has to say and yet HERE YOU ARE. You continue to spend your valuable time reading the articles and posting your screeds attacking them. Why?
Do you just need to let the world know of your superiority (and angry snark)? Do you just love to stay up at your computer, brows furrowed and lip bitten in righteous anger, to lash out at those who dare to disagree with you?
If you don't like this site then don't come here anymore. I don't think Joan, or anyone else, will miss you. Buh-bye!
Obama has said that he believes in the view that the 2nd amendment grants individuals the rights to bear arms, not just 'militias'. That may not seem like a big deal, but it's currently before the Supreme court, and it's not a far-left elitist stance. I don't think this is a recent view, it's an outgrowth of his time as a teacher of constitutional law. He also believes in some regulation of firearms as well. There's a WSJ editoral to this effect awhile ago.
I'm sorry but Bill just strikes me as a loose cannon right now. Bill's lucky that Obama stepped in doo or we'd be talking about his saying that Hillary needs to go to bed early. I liked it when he went after Chris Wallace (FOX) on Iraq, but that was probably the highpoint. There's also the question of what to do about the Foundation (which I think has done some cool stuff). There's that appearance of a conflict of interest, just like on the Columbian trade deal. It's messy.
Bill hasn't been himself lately. I remember a poster named MICKI -- I seem to recall that she is a nurse -- saying that after a by-pass that patients may not quite recover all their smarts. I know after my mother underwent chemo, she has never been the same and I have since read that receiving chemo can affect the memory.
I have to say that throughout most of the campaign Bill Clinton has seemed pretty much tone-deaf.
However, it seems somehow unjust to judge Bill by a criterion that we would not apply to any other potential first spouse.
What evidence do you have that Hillary's sentiments about the Second Amendment are "pinned on?" You seem to imply that.
I read a quote from Obama at Taylor Marsh on that subject and he seemed to be doing a bit of patronized fumbling. I will try to find it tomorrow.
Now, it's bedtime for me.
The L.A. Times reports today that the 61 year old "citizen journalist," Mrs. Fowler, who posted
her report on The Huffington Post about B.O's statements concerning small town
Americans says she's received 200 emails ranging from creepy to threatening
including a few death threats. So much for the new politics and all that
positive change Obama supporters claim to be feeling.
Fowler, an Obama supporter, said she thought O's remarks were "condescending,
even elitist."
I remember reading that as well. I have no idea as to the veracity of mood changes after bypasses. This is the internet after all. I kinda just filed it under the kooky but could be true file.
I have to say that throughout most of the campaign Bill Clinton has seemed pretty much tone-deaf.
I've been more attributing that to his being 'out of shape' politically. The ex-basketball player and now commentator Charles Barkley always likes to criticize players who think they are elite enough to skip training and just turn it on in the playoffs. Bill has been really busy and I don't think really focused on retail politics. I don't fault him for it, but I do think it's affected his timing. He also has to play the straight man now, a different role. There's also Mark Penn to consider. I think Penn went stale. I can't see the younger Bill Clinton misjudging the mood of the electorate for so long. Maybe I'm smoking too much Clintonian mythology.
However, it seems somehow unjust to judge Bill by a criterion that we would not apply to any other potential first spouse.
On one hand I agree with you. On the other, he's the only ex-president. I don't think we can ignore that. He has access, stature, and connections far beyond the two potential first ladies, even the beer heiress.
Personally, I think it's a helluva thing to be an ex-president. We make someone the most powerful person in the world for 4-8 years. Then they have to walk away. It's probably better that way.
Joan, I don't accept your premise that Obama was pandering to wealthy voters.
If you listen to him, he's clearly not pandering at all. He's answering a question from someone who is apparently on his way to Pennsylvania to solicit voters and who wants some advice. Exactly what purpose would it serve to "pander"? The guy asked a thoughtful question, and Obama was giving him a thoughtful answer.
I've also read in various places how the audience laughed at the small town voters of Pennsylvania. But, again, if you listen, the audience is laughing at self-deprecating humor from Obama. As he does from time to time and has since the beginning of this campaign, he referred to himself as "a black guy named Barack Obama," by way of explaining (in part) difficulties he has experienced in getting people to warm up to his candidacy. It was obviously intended to get a laugh, and the audience obliged him and laughed.
I gotta wonder, Joan: Whence this never-ending need to get a gratuitous dig in at Obama? Sure, you've got it relatively under wraps here, and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even really matter. But it just rings so false.
That's what strikes me: Not when criticism rings true. But when it rings false. And it always makes me wonder what the heck is really going on.
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
