"All hat and no cattle."

;-}

AND the cattle, as far as I'm concerned. In other words, he's got the style and the substance to make a great president.

Are you trying to drive the Hillary people off of here?

Scamper back to the "I hate Obama"/Black Helicopter/mountain-out-of-a-molehill corner already...
I seriously doubt that anyone is trying to run off any HRC supporters.

"We are the people out parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

But, as I explained in my comment below this, Obama worries me because he reminds me too much of the false hope we all experienced with Carter.

Bill Richardson:  your country needs you!

But I agree.  That wasn't an "unproductive" comment.  Note the smiley at the end.

Obama looks just fine herding his cattle these days.

Because there is just too much at stake in this election.  I guess that I'm starting to get old and cynical.

When I was a young man fresh out of college, I got all excited about a dynamic and noble candidate for POTUS who seemingly came out of nowhere.  He promised to change the political landscape in Washington, end the corruption, and restore America's greatness in the world after Viet Nam.  I enthusiastically supported him and voted for him.  He was one of the biggest disappointments of my life.

When I listen to Obama today I hear Jimmy Carter.  Sorry folks, but that's just my baggage.

Jimmy Carter was not a friend of mine. And Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. :)

I sure wish that Bill Richardson was still in it.

Hate to get all girly, but I actually "swooned" at work when I saw this.
On the non-girly side,he looks more natural in a cowboy hat than Shrub!
-Maria

"Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is about doing well for the people."- the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MI)

Yes, he probably has a heck of a lot more to strut about that Shrub, if he decided to.  

He really looks fine in that hat.  

George Allen and Shrub combined can't come up with 1/2 the class and attitude of Obama in that hat!

Check out this article about him at Vanity Fair:

http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...

After reading this I felt much better about him. He worked his butt off to get antagonistic groups to work together and agree on solutions. He is dead serious when he says he can bring people together. When it comes to knowing how to work on the ground and what the real issues are he knows what he's talking about.

were alive to comment!

Martha, it's funny you said that. All this focus on TX makes me wonder what she would be saying. She was a hoot!

It makes me so sad that she isn't alive. She was someone I loved and really admired! What a classy woman with such a sassy, sharp wit!

You know, lesser men have tried and failed with the hat/helmet, but this one will work.  Well.

Okay, I'll say it.  He looks HOT in that hat.  Just my take on it as a red-blooded American female.  

I could say it, but I think I've already done enough to cement my rep as some out-of-touch NoVA liberal around here . . .

nt

Seriously, don't post pictures like this during the workday, I was distracted for the rest of the day ;-)

I've got to say, Michelle Obama is a LUCKY woman!

"Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is about doing well for the people."- the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MI)

nt

Blazing Saddles....

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm34...

But the hat is really cool.

in spirit.  She wrote an article on Janaury 20, 2006 stating she would not support Hillary Clinton.  Check out her article.

I really miss her column and her wit.  

http://freepress.org/columns/d...

No holds barred.  

She frankly puts all the other progressive and liberal pundits to shame. She marshaled facts with that biting and wicked sense of humor and her folksy prose to just hammer the point home.

Thanks for the link to that column, Flipper.

Here's my favorite part:

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds.

I had the privilege of briefly meeting her in Austin near the end -- I just told her she kicked alot of ass, and she smiled and thanked me. What a lady.

Good Column Flipper. Thanks for sharing it and it's good to know she's on our side.
I miss her too. She was one of a kind!

"Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is about doing well for the people."- the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MI)

All I can say is Molly was on the mark. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary ... between Bill and Hillary there's a collage of events, statements or policy to take issue with ... TRIANGULATION is such bullshit, really.

But what struck me most about the piece was her insight over the fight going on within the Democratic Party. A fight that seems inevitable now focused through the lens of the internet, stoking a movement in the grass roots.

Obama has tapped into that ... he's riding the wave the Molly Invins saw coming. I just hope the Obama campaign plasters her piece everywhere they can throughout Texas.  

Great start to my day!

"Move 'em on, head 'em up
Head 'em up, move 'em on "

Get 'em to the Texas polls on Primary day - Go Obama

thinking about the Blues Brothers movie and hearing snatches of Rawhide in my head.  

From TPM Election Central:

You obviously didn't get the Ickes and Penn memos. Texas is irrelevent as it is a red state that also holds a caucus and has weird rules for delegate allocation that favors areas with a high concentration of African American population.

Puerto Rico is the new firewall, followed by the lounge at the Denver Hyatt Regency.

Ouch.

They plan to wait until Obama is president, bum a ride on Air Force One, and raid the mini-bar.

...just said that in the past few weeks that five females have fainted at Obama's rallies. He then compared him to the Beatles.
I know we had one fainting here in Virginia Beach.
Incredible...

"Politics is not about power. Politics is not about money. Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is about doing well for the people."- the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MI)

But doesn't that reinforce sexist stereotypes of women?  I mean swooning into a faint.  Come on, now.

But it does happen.  Hell, I bet it's possible for a man to swoon and faint.  They just REALLY try not to.  The last thing they want is their buddies giving crap for that.

If they do faint they just claim they passed out from drinking too much. That's more macho.

Yeah. Her name is Scarlett Johannson.

Let me elaborate.
A woman @ the VA Beach rally fainted. Do I know if she swooned? No. It was really hot and crowded.

I used the term "swoon" to politely express my delight at the picture. I could have said "drooled, hooted, or ogled".
Actually, it was more like a "Holy Cow, come see this!!! (to my co-workers)".

And on the topic of "swooning", as a feminist who believes in equal rights, I believe men should feel comfortable "swooning" if they so desire.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett

I swoon over beautiful women on a regular basis.  Just two rules:  don't pass out and don't stare/touch/stalk.

Seriously, hot and crowded is very different from swooning.  Glad to hear that folks in VA Beach (where I grew up) are still maintaining an even keel.

:-}  

from Barack for it too.  

...that they say was a mistake that the campaign will need to address.  What are they talking about?  

She said something to the effect of, for the FIRST time in her adult life, she was proud of America -- for embracing hope. [I'm paraphrasing, and this is all second-hand, but I think this explanation is accurate.]

She's a tremendous asset to his campaign, and she probably just misspoke while speaking extemporaneously. Still, it is a bit of a slip up, and she'll need to clarify.

Just a bit of nonsense that team Hillary and team McCain will try to make hay out of. I'll bet she'll deal with it deftly.

The knives are certainly being sharpened.

The next thing you know the Clinton campaign will be going through Obama family's trash and claiming they use the wrong laundry detergent.

This "scorched earth" campaign they are now running is dangerous.  If they keep this up, it may be hard for them to get people like me to back them in November.  I can't stand how negative this is getting, and most of the negativity is coming from her side.

She is behind, so of course she is negative.

Seems like pretty tame stuff to me so far.

I realize that many criticisms are a matter of interpretation and point of view, but what has been out of bounds in the last couple of days?

This is what I have been saying for a while now... Hillary (and Bill) are going negative on Obama without regard to the democratic party's success in Nov. just because she believes this is her only chance to become the first female president.  It is time for her to do the right thing and concede so that Obama can concentrate on the general election.  

this was wrong when you said in the other day in another thread, and it is still wrong, for the same reasons I and many others pointed out.

but for the sake of the country.

It amuses me, how naive all of these pearl-clutchers are, given the past 8 years.

this is no way is a troll comment, no more than the first comment.  talk about being hypocritical.

Dan, as best I can tell by your writing, they never had you.  So what's up with the BS "losing me"?

I mean losing me for the General Election, which was certainly a possibility.

and a fraud.  But I refuse to condone the Clinton style of politics with my vote.  You're free to do what you want.

But you don't help your argument by insulting my opinion.

the vote of anyone who would think you had a good argument, here.  There's reason, and then there's something else.  I can't really reach that.  So why treat it as anything else than what it is?

At the end of the day, we all have to decide what we can and can't live with when it comes to our vote. Should such a decision, when amplified a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand times over, lead to a Republican or perhaps the "worse" candidate winning the election in question, then each of us have to live with the results, and no doubt some will regret such a choice -- but such is life.

We're all part of a political market in which 250 million plus people get inputs. The hope is, eventually, that negative outcomes will deter certain types of politics and policies from occurring by leading to candidates' defeat when they engage in those types of politics and decisions.

[Just as an aside, however, I did get called out on this very issue last week for making a similar stance public with regard to Senator Webb and his stance on amnesty/immunity for telecoms during the FISA Amendments debate and votes. For me, the decision is the same -- where a vote would lead to a type of policy I find unacceptable.]

jeepers

I couldn't vote for a War in Iran, which is what a vote for McCain virtually is.  A continuation of Bush policy abroad.  No, I may consider sitting it out in protest, however.

you wouldn't be alone

when he said some stupid stuff in defending his wife. [snark]

today, I think his name was Freer, and he made a big deal of pointing out how unpatriotic this made her.  Once again, I almost wrecked the car while yelling at my radio.  

It's astonishing to see the widespread fear, bordering on panic, issuing from right-wing pundits and republicans at every level of government.

It's as if they know, for the first time, that the American people will finally hold them accountable for their egregious failures, greed, and mendacity.

The greatness of Obama will, however, echo the greatness of Lincoln, when he leads this nation out of these sick political times towards a better stronger America, and with malice towards none.

If you haven't figured it out by now the Hillary campaign will take her candidacy to the convention.... and leverage, arm twist, beg borrow steal ... whatever it takes to get the nomination. Super Delegates be advised.

But as Molly Ivins pointed out what's at stake is a essentially a Make Over of the Democratic party and Obama is leading the charge.

The fact that she hasn't conceded yet.

Golly, a political candidate running almost even with her opponent,  has not conceded? Obviously, it means she is willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, not to mention principles for which  she has sacrificed and worked for thirty years, just for her own ambition.

And TMSKI, you have insight into this how?

The Clintons have never shown any concern for anyone except the Clintons.

While I agree that it is premature at this point for Clinton to concede, I agree that she won't when the time comes for her to do so.  This thing is going to go to a floor fight in Denver.

Did everyone see Joel Achenbach's blog in the WP last week?  In a nutshell, the floor fight in Denver over the Michigan and Florida delegates devolves into lawsuits in Federal court.  Ala Bush v. Gore, it winds up quickly in the Supreme Court.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court rules.  What does this mean?

The Democratic nominee is selected by Antonin Scalia.

;-)

While I don't know about this going to the Supreme Court, I do believe that the Clintons actions will hurt our chances in Nov.  

beyond HisRoc's opinion that "the Clintons have never shown any concern for anyone except the Clintons."

Well, I'm not sure how to respond to this. Of course, all politicians at the national level are twisted, egotistical monsters who think the world revolves around them. I mean, outside of the accidental presidents like Gerald Ford, these are not normal people.

I will point out that as president, Bill Clinton pursued policies that led to the best economy in our lifetimes, and that unlike the economic expansion of the last decade, it benefited virtually everyone, lifting millions out of poveryy of greatly increasing the wealth of average Americans. He also brought peace to Bosnia, and put his personal prestige on the line to forge a peace agreement in the Middle East, where he almost succeeded except for the stupidity of Arafat. Hillary Clinton was a pioneer in advancing the rights of children throughout her career, actually not a very intelligent political move since children can't vote.

Just a few examples, but I am sure that all of that were the unintended consequences of the Clintons' utter lack of concern for anyone except themselves.  

Most economists would disagree with you that Bill Clinton's policies were in any way a major factor in the economic boom of the 90's, anymore than they would agree that his policies triggered the dot.com bust of 1999.  The fact of the matter is that the economic growth during the Clinton administration was a accident of history.  Claiming anything else is like claiming that his environmental policies prevented any major hurricanes from making landfall in the US during his presidency.

The economic boom of the 90's is attributed to a "perfect storm" of collateral events, including:  smart money supply policies under Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve (who was appointed by Reagan), the balanced Federal budget passed by a Republican-controlled Congress competing with a Democratic president to prove who could be most fiscally conservative, and the emergence of the Internet economy to replace the loss of the manufacturing economy.

Clinton's legacy, in the long view of history, is going to be that he stood there and watched it go by.  Not to mention the Monica thing.

reached the point where we are slamming the record of the first Democrat to be re-elected in 30+ years.  It is the hatred that spews from the Obama supporters that makes it real hard for me to believe that they really buy into his message.  The "new politics" of bringing people together.  He may believe in it, but I'm not sure all his supporters do so.

The maturity level amazes me.  If we don't get what we want then we will take our toys home and not play anymore.  Screw the country, let the Republicans control the White House for at least four more years.

I have stated before, I believe Obama represents the best chance for the Democrats to win back the White House.  But, in the end we need a Democrat in the White House.

for the very reason you state - the "new politics" of bringing people together.  It is the very reason we are working so hard for him to win.  Hillary Clinton cannot bring people together - there is simply to much baggage.    

If Hillary Clinton won the nomination and the general election, it would be one fight after the next for four long years.  Nothing would get accomplished.  And I do not have the energy or desire to spend four years defending their baggage.  

I voted for him twice.  But the Monica thing, coupled with the misrepresentations Billary have fousted upon us in an attempt to create a Clinton Restoration, have turned me off completely.

Yet I see you've jumped on the bandwagon of calling them "Billary."  I find that unfortunate, and to be honest with you, that's not the only part of your argument to elicit that reaction from me.  I'm not supporting Barack Obama because I want to debate and quibble and reevaluate America's past, but rather because I want to talk about America's future.  Reinterpretting "Billary's" administration has thus far been beneath Sen. Obama, and I'd hope that it would also be beneath you.

First, most economists would tell you that governments are rarely positive factors in economics. I can't really argue the point -- I'm not an economist.

But back to Clinton and his "accidental economy." There is quite a difference of opinion about that.

In 1993, Greenspan became worried about deficits, and said the Fed would raise rates if steps weren't taken to bring it under control. Clinton proposed a budget i 1993 that included a tax increase to help do this, a budget which passed despite the fact that every Republican in the Congress voted against it. Al Gore has to case the tie-breaker in the Senate.

Economists, Republicans and conservative pundits declared the U.S. economy was finished. The Clinton administration argued otherwise, saying the budget would lead to lower interest rates and a growing economy, which is precisely what occurred.

Of course, the economy didn't begin to grow right away, and as much as the 1994 debacle is blamed on the failed health care initiative, so to were Democrats saddled with having voted for a huge tax increase.

So, yes, the growth of the 1990s was due to a number of disparate factors -- economics always are. But it is quite correct to say a few things about the Clinton economic record:

1. The budget of 1993 was politically risky and economically effective.
2. The Clinton administration embraced changing technology, helping fuel the Internet boom.
3. Unlike other booms, the economic benefit of the Clinton years benefitted people across the political and financial spectrum.
4. Clinton created and got enacted policies and plans, such at the EITC, which brought relatively little political benefit. The political benefit of cutting taxes on the rich at the expense of the lower class will always benefit you more.

HisRoc, the point is not argue economics. You seem much more knowledgeable about this stuff and so I can't win that argument. The point is to debunk overly broad and patently false statements like "The Clintons never cared about anyone except themselves," or "The CLintons always act in their own interests, no matter who gets hurt."

The problem with these statements, is that they get repeated so much people start to believe them, and then use them to support statements like, "Hillary will never drop out of the race no matter what."

Please, hold that opinion if you wish, but have the honesty to admit it is because, for whatever reason, you are personally distrustful of her and not try to suggest that there is any historical support for the assertion because "the Clintons have never shown any concern for anyone except the Clintons."

 

Brighten this evening by reading the Molly Ivins OpEd piece posted above. She really pegged the Clintons and the struggle going on in the Democratic Party between Party Insiders and the grassroots uprising. It's one reason why Hillary is losing .... she can't buy or barter something so ethereal as the bloggo-sphere or the grassroots.

She hasn't shown LEADERSHIP and consequently doesn't command this fickle crowd. I could go on but I leave it to the likes of Molly Ivins, Camille Paglia, Maureen Dowd or Peggy Noonan (interesting group of critics - any feminist in there??) to discern the motivations of Mrs. Clinton.

My conclusion is precisely what you described above .... the Clintons will push this to the bitter end even if they lose Ohio or Texas (James Carville is wrong about his friends) Let's be clear about this ... the Clintons are the consummate careerist politicians and this campaign has been in the works for a very long time. They ain't giving up unless they're crushed in the rest of the primaries .... even then they'll try playing the Michigan  Florida card .... they'll push and push on the "Super Delegates".

No ... it's not altruism going on within the Clinton campaign ... it's career ending desperation.... and it won't be pretty.

Regardless of whether or not Bill Clinton should get credit for the economic prosperity in the '90's (and I think he should) I don't understand the claim that because Bill is her husband, that Hillary will bring those good times back.  Is there a switch that Hillary can turn on and BOOM, she is in the White House and everything is rolling along like it was in the '90's?  I hardly think so.  

The economy is a train wreck right now - oil and gas prices are sky high, the collapse of the housing market has pushed the country into recession, the debt is sky high, the Iraq war is sucking out almost a trillion dollars in taxpayer money (good vote Hil!), and the stock market is in a free fall.

The problems and issues are huge, and to be frank, Hillary Clinton has way too much baggage to bring everyone together to resolve these issues.  Obama is the only candidate that can bring everyone together to get the job done.  The way Washington has operated has got to stop -  and the Obama movement is going to stop it.  

a lot of ill-will with his comments about Senator Obama in South Carolina.  Trying to marginalize Obama as a black candidate has hurt Hillary's campaign and damaged his legacy.  Bill Clinton's comments were appalling - some would even say, unforgiveable.  

The stuff Hillary and Bill spews at Obama is but a warmup for the republican attack machine.
This  is good for Obama.  Nobody should escape scrutiny on their way to the presidency.
So far, Sen Obama has  looked real good.

If anything Clinton is doing Obama a favor.  If he can't deal with her attacks, he's going to get toasted in the general.  McCain's an unstable and craven old man, but he'll bring the full force of the Republican attack machine onto himself.  If anyone thinks that that can be overcome by his politics of hope?  Sadly mistaken.

Shows Clinton leading 50-45.  This I tend to believe more than CNN's poll, but still, cause for happiness among the Obamans.  This is before he has actively campaigned in the state, before his field operation will have been able to prove its superiority over Clinton's, and his monetary advantage felt in terms of market saturation.

Texas is within reach for Obama.  Obama has almost two weeks to make his case to Texans.  Regardless, what this means is that Obama is close in Texas, and has the potential to win either the popular vote or the delegates.  Either way, he can knock Hillary out of the race with two wins today, and a win in Texas.  

Though this is likely out of the margin of error, it can't be outside by much.  This means that Obama can possibly end Clinton by March with a good showing in Texas.

A co-chairman of Hillary's Michigan campaign and  has a line that's sure to drive a whole bunch of red state governors up the wall:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

That's disgusting. Do you have a link to that?

Here is the link:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

"Why not?  It worked in Blazing Saddles!" ~Mel Brooks

Obama looks great in that hat.  

Reminded me of this photo from 1974:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm32...