"Got Disney"
<font color=blue>They’re like Lays chips...just ca
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 13,377
Thanks for the hugs, guys. I'm okay. The one death was totally unexpected. That's the one that really got to me.
So sorry




Thanks for the hugs, guys. I'm okay. The one death was totally unexpected. That's the one that really got to me.
Oh MerryPoppins I'm so sorry!![]()
Okay guys I just got off the phone with my Dad.
Yes, that would be the crazy lunatic in Fl with no computer, that's had me emailing the DNC almost daily for himHe's really pissed at Dean.
However, he nailed it on the Pennsylvania election. He told me the day before it would be between 9 and 10% win for Hillary. His latest prediction? Indiana by 10% and he thinks she'll lose NC but only by 2%.
I figure the way the polls have been; my dad's just as reliable!![]()
I know, we got served!
I've read it about 10 times now and I'm still not getting it. My blonde roots are showing.Was it supposed to make sense or no?
Though I'm looking forward to that Time magazine showing up in the mail!![]()
Hey charlie,nj.. .thanks for the post! You made an excellent point that I hadn't realized before now......... the Hillary thread will hit 250 pages pretty soon.
It's time, you guys, to start thinking about a new thread.Can you believe that we're already to that point?
I've been lurking lately, but I'm still here. Lost two dear friends in the last two weeks, so I haven't felt much like joining in. But I have enjoyed a good read occassionally. Thanks for keeping me caught up.
I'm proud of Hillary's win! You go girl!
They let us go for 250 pages. Or as soon after that as they notice. I'm on a couple threads that have gone over the 250 pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I really liked this piece. It is well worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I really liked this piece. It is well worth reading.
After Barack Obamas defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.
He may well be right but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now its talking about math. Yes we can has become No she cant.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment yet he still cant seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clintons health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they cant afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who dont think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
Fair is Fair
By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23
What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.
The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."
So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.
Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?
I am not making any bones about the fact that our campaign has pointed out what we believe are legitimate differences between Clinton and Obama on important issues. We have spoken out when we thought the Obama campaign made false distinctions, such as when it ran advertising in Pennsylvania on standing up to oil companies, particularly when Clinton was the one who did stand up to the oil companies by voting against the Bush-Cheney energy bill. And we believed it was appropriate to debate Obama's comments about working people in small towns, because they expressed a view of small-town Americans with which Hillary Clinton strongly disagrees.
But throughout that debate, Clinton deliberately focused on the content of Obama's comments without making sweeping statements about his character.
It's an important distinction. The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character -- not her positions, but her character -- saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary "one of the most secretive politicians in America today" -- a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.
Axelrod described Clinton as having "a special interest obsession."
Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton "doesn't have the sense that things need to change in Washington" -- a patently false and demeaning observation.
In the Philadelphia debate last week, Obama incorrectly said that his campaign addressed Hillary's misstatements on Bosnia only when asked to by reporters. In fact, Obama's campaign has organized several conference calls on the topic, including one this past weekend in which the featured speaker said that Clinton lacks "the moral authority to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day" (a statement the Obama campaign thankfully repudiated after we called it on it). Even though many reporters participated in those calls, Obama's misstatement in Philadelphia was almost completely ignored.
The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama's campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.
The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us -- and sometimes the media do, too.
Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined person, and she will continue to discuss real solutions to America's problems and the need for strong leadership to implement those solutions -- even if she must play by a different set of rules than Barack Obama. But wouldn't it be better if in this campaign what's good for the goose were also good for the gander? After all, in America, fair is supposed to be fair.
The writer is a strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.