Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 9, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

RICHARDSON OUT....Apparently Bill Richardson will drop out of the Democratic race tomorrow. No big surprise.

So who will this help? Before today I would have guessed probably Obama, or maybe Edwards. But two data points give me pause. First, Richardson's biggest policy difference with the other candidates was his call to get all American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and New Hampshire voters who wanted to get out of Iraq favored Hillary Clinton over both Obama and Edwards.

Second, if Jay Carney's friend is right, and both Biden and Dodd supporters in New Hampshire ended up voting for Hillary, that suggests that voters supporting conventional "experienced" candidates end up supporting another experienced candidate when their guy drops out. And among the remaining candidates, that's Hillary. Richardson's main selling point has been his resume and his experience, so it seems likely that his supporters will turn to Hillary as well.

None of this may be fair. By all rights, withdrawal supporters ought to favor Obama or Edwards. And it's arguable that, in reality, Hillary is no more experienced than Obama. But fairness doesn't really matter. Hillary, by common consent, is the candidate of experience, and apparently also the candidate of voters who want to get out of Iraq. So Richardson dropping out seems likely to boost her prospects.

Kevin Drum 8:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (195)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

No group of voters ever break entirely one way or another. Richardson had less than 5%. His voters will be split mostly among Clinton and Obama, with a net different probably no more than a point or so. So very little effect from his drop out.

Posted by: brian on January 9, 2008 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Why on earth would he drop out before Nevada? That doesn't make sense.

Posted by: LAS on January 9, 2008 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

If he did drop out, it would make sense to do it RIGHT NOW.

There are two candidates with a lot on the line going into a state with a big hispanic vote, not to far from his home of New Mexico.

His leverage over the front runners will never be bigger, as far as the value of his endorsement. He could pry all sorts of promises out of Clinton or maybe Obama.

Just a guess.

Posted by: matthewcc on January 9, 2008 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

And it's arguable that, in reality, Hillary is no more experienced than Obama.

I don't see it. Even if you discount the eight years she spent as first lady, she's still been in the senate four years longer than he has, and she's been on the Armed Services Committee the entire time. Exactly what argument can be made? Obama lived in different countries as a child (how much should this count?), but she travelled the world as first lady, and had to learn something from her time with the other Clinton. I can see an argument that experience is overrated, but no argument at all that Obama is as experienced as Hillary.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&feature=user

Posted by: jesse jackson jr. on January 9, 2008 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Hillary, by common consent, is the candidate of experience, and apparently also the candidate of voters who want to get out of Iraq."

That statement just perplexes me. How can Democrats be so ignorant? How can Clinton say that she's been "working for change" for 25 years and not be ripped to shreds for making such a ridiculous statement? This is really making embarrassed to consider myself a Democrat.

Posted by: Andrew on January 9, 2008 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Martin, lay off the Hillary kool-aid. Yes, you have to discount her years as first lady. No, hosting tea for foreign dignitaries doesn't count as foreign policy experience. She was practically given the nomination and election in 2000, and she has had a insubstantial career in the Senate.

Barrack Obama has several years more experience in elected office, and an impressive career before that. From wikipedia:

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office. He served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, and after a failed bid for the U.S. Congress in 2000, he launched his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2003.

Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while still an Illinois state legislator. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with a landslide 70% of the vote in an election year marked by Republican gains.[5][6] As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama co-sponsored the enactment of conventional weapons control and transparency legislation, and made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

Posted by: Andrew on January 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, should have made it clear I'm not interested in hearing a response from an Obamabot/Hillary hater. I'm not a Hillary supporter, and not interested in hearing canned talking points, either. Greenwald has some boilerplate verbage on his site regarding this sort of stuff:

If you find that one (or both) of the following thoughts is entering your brain, it may be helpful to remind yourself that they are fallacies:

* X criticizes negative media coverage of Candidate Y. Therefore, X supports Candidate Y.

* X criticizes positive media coverage being lavished on Candidate Y. Therefore, X opposes Candidate Y.

For a rational person, it is actually possible to criticize negative media coverage directed at a candidate that one does not support. It's equally possible -- for a rational person, that is -- to criticize positive media coverage being lavished on a candidate one likes.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Andrew, just one little mistake in your post. Hillary claims she's been working for change for '35' years. Let's see, she's my age. So that means she's been working for change since the age of 25. Just a teence exaggerated perhaps?

Posted by: nepeta on January 9, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Bye, Bill. I'll miss you a great deal in the coming months.

Posted by: nepeta on January 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kev, I am not sure I read the numbers the same way. I see your point that withdrawal supporters favored Hillary, but her lead over Obama was not that great. Another point is that Hillary got most support from women--and that is not a natural Richardson constituency. To make matters worse, I wonder if the former is disproportionately the latter--that is, if more women than men support immediate withdrawal. With these caveats, I would not jump on the bandwagon just yet. I also don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference--we are talking about a couple of percentage points difference from a less than 10% pool. In other words, even if the numbers break as you say they do, Hillary's advantage from picking up Richardson supporters (assuming that they will break according to NH numbers--which is also not likely) would give her less than a 0.5% boost over Obama. If she's actually leading, that means something (that she's still leading). If she's behind, she's likely behind by more than that. So it may help her, but even if it does, it is not by much.

But, if you are right, it would hurt Edwards, who, at the moment, needs to pick up all the unattached voters he can. This is, unfortunately, not likely to happen.

One thing about NH. There's been a lot of discussion of why the results for Hillary differed so much from the latest polls. If polls were accurate, virtually all the late-deciding voters and the majority of independents voted for her. But there are two points that put that account into doubt--first, Josh Marshall points out that independents broke 60/40 for the Dem primary. He thought that's good numbers, but the expected indie turnout for Dems was higher. So the split helped McCain against Romney, but it was not sufficient for Obama. To make a difference, he would have needed closer to an 80/20 split, which would have been likely had the Repub primary not been so close.

The second point comes from CNN exit polls. It is absolutely clear that Hillary wins the "dedicated voter" contest--that is, among those who are firm in their support of the chosen candidate, she gets a distant majority (something over 70%). Obama, on the other hand, dominates among the "soft" voters--and this is in the primary that he lost by a small margin. That can easily indicate that other soft Obama supporters (women) broke the other way at the last moment, possibly because of the media coverage.

My main claim stakes Obama's loss on his own success. That is, more independents would have voted for him in the Dem primary had the late polls not had him up by such a wide margin. Having an apparent cushion, allowed them to move over to McCain and Paul, leaving Obama gasping for air.

Posted by: buck on January 9, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta: Hillary claims she's been working for change for '35' years. Let's see, she's my age. So that means she's been working for change since the age of 25. Just a teence exaggerated perhaps?

No, just an attempt to simplify voting. In the future, in order to make it easier to remember the candidate's names, all Democratic candidates will be named Clinton, and all Republicans will be named Bush.

This will work out well. After Hillary's 8 years in office, Chelsea will be old enough to run. And there are always plenty of Bushes to piss behind.

Posted by: alex on January 9, 2008 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever, Martin. You have accepted Hillary's stupid talking point. A rational person does not look at the records of Hillary and Obama and consider Hillary "more experienced." Especially when she says she has been "working for change" for 35 years (thanks nepeta), during most of which she was married to a centrist governor and president. Saying that Hillary has more experience because of being in the Senate longer than Obama ignores all his time in the Illinois state senate.

Posted by: Andrew on January 9, 2008 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Even if you discount the eight years she spent as first lady, she's still been in the senate four years longer than he has, and she's been on the Armed Services Committee the entire time.

Martin,
Unfortunately, the years in the Senate are the entirety of legislative experience that Hillary has. Come to think of it, other than being Bill's wife, both in Little Rock and in DC, what is her experience? She may think she's qualified and she may know everyone who's of any consequence, but, let's face it, her experience is very limited.

Obama may have spent less time in the Senate (although 3 years on the job is not bad), but he's had other legislative experience, particularly working across party lines. And his current involvement with Kenya--all in the midst of the campaign--shows that he has more foreign policy credentials than the media is willing to give him credit for.

Hillary is more experienced at formal campaign rhetoric, but is that really the quality you seek in a future president?

I am not an Obama voter at this point, but I disagree with the characterizations that he gets along these lines.

Posted by: buck on January 9, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hate to feed the trolls, but OK, so omit the years as first lady. Sen. Clinton still has an impressive resume too. Now what?

I'm voting for Kucinich in the Illinois primary and it's unlikely anything will shake me from that, but damn all you misogynists, if anything would make me vote for Clinton (whom I don't particularly like) it would be you guys.

Posted by: rabbit on January 9, 2008 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

It's all about the Latinos. Richardson, who annouced his campaign in Los Angeles speaking in Spanish, would have attracted a large Latino contingent. With his withdrawal those voters are up to grabs.

For those prone to conspiracy theories, one wonders if Team Clinton did not ask Richardson to drop out. Hillary has a significant edge over Obama among Latinos, there is a growning sense of animosity between Latinos and African-Americans, and Clinton advisors began talking about a "Latino Firewall" during the desperate days after Iowa. (See John Judis article on TNR for more data). Will Latinos choose Clinton? We'll see, but the signs certainly point to a Clinton boost from Richardson's withdrawal.

Plus: New Mexico is now in play. That might favor Obama who seems to have a little bit more money, but will probably favor Hillary with her lead among Latino voters.

Posted by: James on January 9, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

rabbit,

I'm not a 'guy.' In fact I'm a baby boomer female, exactly Hillary's age I think. I am admittedly very anti-Clinton (even though I don't have a favorite except, like you, will be voting for Kucinich in the primaries exactly as I did in 2004). So don't count all Hillary antipathy as sexism. I still have a lot of thinking to do about this race and, who knows, may end up voting for Hillary in the end, but I think it's quite unlikely.

Posted by: nepeta on January 9, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta, I wasn't talking to (or about) you! I don't think you said anything misogynist. What I would characterize as misogynist was Andrew's "hosting tea" -- and any number of other comments, in other comment threads, on this site.

Posted by: rabbit on January 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, she's my age. So that means she's been working for change since the age of 25. Just a teence exaggerated perhaps?

At the age of 25 or 26 she was working on the House Watergate Committee. At the time, people believed that was going to effect some important change by smacking down executive abuse of power. But it didn't, as it turns out--so right you are.

Posted by: shortstop on January 9, 2008 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and even before she was working on the House Watergate Committee, she was a staff attorney at the Marian Wright Edelman-founded Children's Defense Fund. Nope, no working for change there. Too young. Only 25.

Posted by: shortstop on January 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

The scenario James describes was the first thing that popped into my mind upon hearing of Richardson's withdrawal.

I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: Lucy on January 9, 2008 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

At age 13 she was canvassing for Nixon at 17 she was volunteering for Barry Goldwater. Glad she doesn't count that.

Posted by: B on January 9, 2008 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

By most accounts, Hillary has been an extremely effective legislator, working across the aisle to get bills passed. She has realy relished the job and has learned a lot since she started. Obama has really shown little interest in being in the Senate -- why did he run to be Senator anyway! He has been a mediocre legislator, much like Edwards.

Posted by: d.liman on January 9, 2008 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

@rabbit and MartinGale

Ok, let's agree that Hillary is "experienced". Now, would you care to explain what this experience has meant in terms of actual, specific achievements? In eight years in the Senate, what specific major legislation has Hillary written and passed? This is a genuine question, and if you want to endorse Hillary as the experience candidate, you ought to be able to answer it.

Posted by: nickzi on January 9, 2008 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

You can take a survey of the Senate Democrats to confirm that Hillary is much more engaged, effective, and knowledgeable than Obama. Obama has spent his time in the Senate, preparing to run for president.

Posted by: d.liman on January 9, 2008 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd, in addition to the NY Times editorial board itself (see this from the NY Times editorial board), just obviously can't keep her Clinton hatred bottled up.

Read the goddamn column the woman wrote. In sheer gratuitous, sneering viciousness, it is simply remarkable.

These people are every bit as bad as the worst of the Republicans when it comes to the Clintons.

I'm sure that, just as the Republicans can't get over the fact that they went after the Clintons again and again, the Clintons never went down, and always found a way to win.

Imagine how the Heathers-that-be at the NY Times must have felt when they knew for sure that the Clintons would be dealt their final blow in NH, were ready to see them escorted off the national stage, and, once again, impossibly, the Clintons win.

If the NY Times cared anything about their own image for objectivity, you'd think that they might have found a way to control themselves over Hillary's stunning NH win. You'd think that it would be a warning sign to them that one of the very things that appears to have fueled Hillary's win was the sense that she was being unfairly abused by the media among others. But these sad, arrested personalities could not help but be who they are, and react as their ugliest urges drove them.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 9, 2008 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

What we have learned thus far is that the volumes and volumes of blah, blah, blah punditry doesn't mean crap. It's all BS filtered through the particular pundit's bias.

We'll all have to wait for the votes to be counted.

Posted by: Chris Brown on January 9, 2008 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

Obama was an obscure Chicago legislator 3 years ago. No way is he ready to run a bureaucracy as large as the U.S. government. He needs a few years in the Senate or as a VP. Let's be real here. Commander-in-chief???

Hillary was a partner/manager in a large law firm for years, before she came to DC. Plus 8 years as First Lady, plus 8 years as an effective legislator.

Posted by: d.liman on January 9, 2008 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I should have written above, instead of what I did,

I'm sure that, just as the Republicans can't get over the fact that, though they went after the Clintons again and again, the Clintons never went down, and always found a way to win, likewise this has been the despair of the NY Times editorial board and Maureen Dowd.
Or even something better.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 9, 2008 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

nickzi, you don't get what I'm saying. As I said, I am not endorsing Clinton. I will vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee--but I won't be happy about it.

But what I am also not endorsing is all the sneering at her "pouring tea" (not to mention all the sneering at her laugh, and her cleavage, and her wrinkles, and on and on) when she had an extensive resume as a nonprofit, government, and corporate lawyer, board member, etc. before ever getting to the Senate--things she had to fight for, as a woman, back when there was explicit, profound, and perfectly legal hiring discrimination against women. I don't know the particulars of her Senate experience; to me, she's one corporate candidate among others. But the sneering wears me out. As far as the misogynistic commentators (and this is not by any means to equate them with every Clinton critic) are concerned, they might as well be sneering at me and my body and my accomplishments and anything I might ever do in life, too. When it goes beyond rational weighing of pros and cons of candidates, and into a sick sexist fantasy world, then it's not about her anymore -- it's about ALL women. And I'm sick of it.

Posted by: rabbit on January 9, 2008 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

I've been working for change my whole damn life. Sometimes for scraps.

Posted by: jerry on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

At age 13 she was canvassing for Nixon at 17 she was volunteering for Barry Goldwater. Glad she doesn't count that.

LOL. "Hillary: The Expunged Years."

Posted by: shortstop on January 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Iraq analysis takes small margins in exit polls way too seriously. Especially since most voters weren't voting based on Iraq policy. Usually Kevin is pretty on target, but that part of this post makes very little sense.

Posted by: ikl on January 9, 2008 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

So does Hillary 35 years of working for change include the six years she spent on the Wal-Mart board of directors?

Posted by: Mr Nice Guy on January 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK
....So that means she's been working for change since the age of 25....nepeta at 9:36 PM
2007 - 1966 roughly 40 years. Close enough

...She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.[16][17] However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;[16] she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."[18] In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,[8] and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[19] Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting...

Posted by: Mike on January 9, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is more experienced. She has a history of attempting major federal healthcare reform and she failed miserably. Obama has not tried healthcare reform, but he hasn't failed either.

Healthcare is important to me and why should I support someone with a track record of failure? Give the new guy a chance.

Posted by: Elliott on January 9, 2008 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Now Bill Richardson can do what he should have been doing all along: run for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by Pete Domenici. He can flip that seat into the blue column.

Posted by: Zeno on January 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

So! The "big tent" democratic party isn't such a big tent after all.

First, Obama, a black man, gets smacked down by east coast liberal democratic voters in NH. Now, Richardson, a Latino, finds that there is no room for him in the Presidential race.

Democratic Party. THe party of the Racicists.

Posted by: egbert on January 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

Imagine how the Heathers-that-be at the NY Times must have felt when they knew for sure that the Clintons would be dealt their final blow in NH, were ready to see them escorted off the national stage, and, once again, impossibly, the Clintons win.

The problem with that theory is that if you own a newspaper, the Clintons are quite good for business. People like reading about them, talking about them, and debating them.

Look, Maureen Dowd personalizes and trivializes EVERYTHING. That's her style. The only thing that is surprising is that anyone is still surprised when she does it.

Posted by: Dilan Esper on January 9, 2008 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

egbert - HRC and Obama both got 9 delegates in NH and HRC only won by 3 percentage points. That's hardly a smackdown.

Posted by: Elliott on January 9, 2008 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, egbert! The presidential race is not an entitlement. But if experience was all that mattered, Bill would have taken it standing up.

So how is Keyes doing? Kicking ass as the affirmative action candidate, to show what a bunch of good-hearted, diversity-loving souls you lot are?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 9, 2008 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Uh Kevin, how about Bill Clinton blatantly deceiving people about Obama's Iraq record. It's funny how you are just ignoring all of Hillary's dirty tricks.

Posted by: Jor on January 9, 2008 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Richardson's exit helps me... in the decision to vote Green, precisely over Iraq. Info on Green presidential candidates here.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

People who complain about the media's viciousness to clinton should look at some comments on liberal blogs. Even liberal blog readers don't like her much. The fact that she has a lot of animosity directed towards her is now a fact, and not just confined to anyone political group.

Posted by: Jor on January 9, 2008 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Zeno... on Big Bill running for the Senate? Nope...

Tom Udall won't withdraw from that race, and Democratic candidates have already filed to run for Udall's House seat.

A month ago? Yes. I think NM state Dem party figures will get ruffled if Richardson decides to run.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jor:

In defense of Kevin (which is weird because he's now deleted a couple of my comments and closed down a thread because he thinks I criticize the Clintons too much), he is a commentator and has every right to comment or not comment on whatever he wants to. I haven't seen him attack Obama over the Iraq War or defend Bill Clinton's position on it.

Saying that one admires Hillary Clinton and thinks she is one of the best of a good group of Democratic candidates (which I believe is an accurate statement of Kevin's position) doesn't make him responsible for everything either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever did or said.

[Kevin didn't delete your comments. That was me. --Mod]

Posted by: Dilan Esper on January 9, 2008 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Look, Maureen Dowd personalizes and trivializes EVERYTHING.

Not like the way she's gone after the Clintons.

She could have played the Hillary story in any number of ways, including the obvious one in which she picks up on the very theme that won Hillary the election: the sense that Hillary expressed some emotion, was perceived as being much abused by many, many parties, and women rallied to her side.

Instead, we get nothing but the most cynical description of every last aspect of what went on in NH, both from Dowd, and the NY Times editorial board itself.

It's hard not to conclude a very simple fact: when it comes to the Clintons, the NY Times and much of its high level staff are every bit as much a part of the fever swamp as any Republican or minion of Scaife.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

By most accounts, Hillary has been an extremely effective legislator

Ah, yes. It brings tears of pride to my eyes knowing she co-sponsored a clearly unconstitional flag burning bill. Some say she was just pandering but we know our Hillary wouldn't do that.

And who can forget the stick-it-to-the-poor bankruptcy bill of 2001 she voted for or the conveniently missed vote on the 2005 bankruptcy bill.

Posted by: Mr Nice Guy on January 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Not like the way she's gone after the Clintons.

All her Iraq War columns are filled with the same sort of trivializations about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest. That is her formula. During the Lewinsky scandal, she wrote 6 months of columns about the Clintons in that style, followed by 6 months of columns about Ken Starr, also in the same style. That's just what she does.

Look, the column wasn't very good. She is clearly falling for the sexist garbage that Hillary isn't allowed to show emotion. But whoever is in power, Maureen Dowd writes the same column.

Posted by: Dilan Esper on January 9, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen Dowd, in addition to the NY Times editorial board itself (see this from the NY Times editorial board), just obviously can't keep her Clinton hatred bottled up.

And this distinguishes her from you & your antipathy toward all things Obama... exactly how? Stylistically? The respective size of your audiences?

Posted by: junebug on January 9, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

I am with you FranklyO. Maureen Dowd's column on Hillary was sheer malice.

I have'nt watched any T.V. news for 15 years & most of my news and Op-ed is from the Web or newspapers. Watched a snippet of the debate on You Tube between Hillary and Obama.

Both were impressive. So it's kind of hard to pick between the two. My main concern regarding Obama is that he might not be really committed to Universal Healthcare. Obama is very charismatic though and it would be good for this country to have someone other than a Bush or Clinton in the white house.

Also counting against Hillary is her vote to authorise force leading upto the Iraq war. Would Obama have voted against the force authorisation if he had been in the Senate then? Don't know..

And why is'nt anyone talking about the exploding risk from the bursting of the housing bubble? I'd think Edwards would be all over that one..

So there it is. I am going to think about this one. Either Obama or Clinton would make a good president. And so would Edwards, probably.

Posted by: ppk on January 9, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

New feature from the AP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7212726,00.html
Got Questions About the News? Ask AP

Thursday January 10, 2008 3:01 AM

By The Associated Press

Does the news ever leave you wanting more?

Do you read about world events online and wish you could click on a Tell Me More button? Do you watch newscasts, read blogs and download news podcasts, only to end up frustrated by a question that's left ringing in your head?

Here's your chance to get some answers from the people who really know the news: journalists at the world's largest newsgathering organization.

Introducing ``Ask AP,'' a Q&A column where The Associated Press answers your questions about the news - anything from ``What's a subprime mortgage?'' to ``What ever happened to Linda Tripp?'' to ``How does a reporter prepare to be embedded with the military in Iraq?''

AP editors will choose some of the questions sent in by readers like you and get answers from AP reporters and editors - the people who spend their days covering the very issues you're curious about.

So send your questions to newsquestions(at)ap.org, with ``Ask AP'' in the subject line. Then keep an eye out for installments of the new Q&A column, where you'll finally get some answers.

Posted by: jerry on January 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Obama earns great respect from me for not playing the race card. Hillary is losing my respect for playing the gender card.

Posted by: Elliott on January 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "But fairness doesn't really matter. Hillary, by common consent, is the candidate of experience, and apparently also the candidate of voters who want to get out of Iraq. So Richardson dropping out seems likely to boost her prospects."

Didn't we learn anything from our collective experience last night?

Let's heed Tom Brokaw's advice to the sputtering Chris Matthews, and not get too far ahead of ourselves here, in fairness to the remaining candidates.

And while we're at it, let's also take due note of the infinite wisdom of New Hampshire voters, who exposed for all to see the folly of allowing either the media -- of which the blogosphere, like it or not, is an extended part -- to coronate de facto our respective parties' nominees, when 99% of us have yet to cast our primary ballots.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Look, the column wasn't very good. She is clearly falling for the sexist garbage that Hillary isn't allowed to show emotion. But whoever is in power, Maureen Dowd writes the same column.

Well, God spare me from the task of attempting to perform comprehensive exegesis of the spitefulness that is Maureen Dowd.

I can only say this about this particular column, and that of the "editorial" or, as I like to call it, the deranged rant the editorial board wrote about its impressions of the NH campaign, is just how much both are clear outliers in the analysis of the NH campaign. I can't think of anyone outside of the fever swamp itself who managed to find so many cynical and negative interpretations of what figured into Hillary's win. The Times board attributes her win, of all things, to the "anger" of her campaign. I can't think of anyone who has made that claim outside the fever swamp. Dowd's description of Hillary's "moment", in which she quotes the derisive and dismissive and sceptical reactions of fellow reporters to that event, is something that is, again, matched in its viciousness only by the sort of Hillary haters that women in NH were clearly disgusted with.

When, as it seems, virtually the entirety of the high level editorial staff at the Times is so far out of touch with the voters, and is so eager to spill its bile that it comes out with articles and columns like this, you know that there is an institutional problem.

They are, again, members in good standing in the fever swamp. Bill Clinton called them on it in NH. And in savaging Hillary over the NH result as they did, they proved it for certain.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

My main concern regarding Obama is that he might not be really committed to Universal Healthcare.

Obama does not support mandates because when he has spoken with the working poor they consistently tell him they are opposed to mandates because they are afraid they will be forced to pay premiums they can't afford.

Hillary and Edwards = Univerally Imposed Healthcare
Obama = Universally Available Healthcare, affordable to all who want and need it

Posted by: Elliott on January 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

nepeta: "Hillary claims she's been working for change for '35' years. Let's see, she's my age. So that means she's been working for change since the age of 25. Just a teence exaggerated perhaps?"

At age 25, Hillary Rodham was serving as one of the Democratic legal counsels to the Senate Watergate Committee. While she obviously had little if any decision-making authority, I'd still count that service as working for change.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Dilan Esper - the thread was shut down because you repeatedly and blatantly lied about the Clintons.

Amazingly, according to our friend Dilan here, Iraq is the fault of the Clintons and when a judge says "Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed, does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," what she really means is that testimony that could never influence the outcome of the case is, in fact, material to that case.

Source: CNN

Posted by: heavy on January 10, 2008 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

[Deleted / banned commenter]

Posted by: DilanEsper on January 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

I agree that some of the press coverage of Hillary (Matthews in particular) has been condescending and insulting to women. But please, not everyone who doesn't like Hillary is a misogynist. That is utterly lame and just plays the stupid victim card. Fact is given the breadth of both Obama's and Clinton's experiences, neither one can really claim the mantle of experience. What I do find distasteful is Hillary's use of "we" in describing anything done in the 90s. She was First Lady, not part of the Clinton Administration. Somehow I don't think she thinks "we" had sex with Monica.

Just as she shouldn't be excluded from consideration because she's a woman, she shouldn't be handed anything because she's married to Bill. If she tries to ride his coattails that is how she will be perceived. Just say no to Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. This is American, not some kingdom where dynasties exchange the throne every 4 or 8 years.

Posted by: Jim on January 10, 2008 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Aloha, Donald. Wise words at 11:53 PM and a good reminder.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 10, 2008 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

Well, the idea that Hillary Clinton is more experienced that Barack Obama is a little more serious than the idea that she is anywhere near as experienced as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson.

Maybe the media shouldn't have been so credulous about Clinton's claims as to experience. But, honestly, if the other Democratic candidates are thinking this they have only themselves to blame.

You can't ever count as a politician on the media doing your job for you. All of the candidates with genuine depth of experience had a good year to make the case that this mattered in a Presidential race. They all thought it made more sense to smile and say how wonderful all the other candidates were. So now they are gone and their candidacies the answer to future political trivia questions. That's the way it goes.

Posted by: Zathras on January 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

And this distinguishes her from you & your antipathy toward all things Obama... exactly how? Stylistically? The respective size of your audiences?

Look, junebug, let me explain a few things to you.

I'm not a NY Times columnist. I haven't, therefore, the same responsibility or pressure to eschew as much as possible partisan preferences toward particular candidates. I can quite rightly declare such preferences and argue for them. In case you haven't noticed, it's primary time, and exactly the time people who care about the Democratic Party do such things.

You're right. I just don't like Obama, for a number of reasons I've gotten into over the campaign. I think he would very likely turn out as a pretty wretched Democratic President. I'd expect he'd be as much of a failure in that role as Jimmy Carter, and probably worse, and this would do long term damage to the Democratic Party. I don't react that way to either Hillary or Edwards.

So I argue my case. I try to make good arguments, and avoid bad ones. That's it.

For what it's worth, Paul Krugman has also taken a clear and intense dislike to the idea of an Obama Presidency. I find this fact remarkable not least because he must feel a great deal of pressure in his role to refrain from expressing such preferences. But he clearly has felt so strongly about Obama that he has chosen to speak out. He has not been cowed by the protests from the Obama camp that he is terribly unfair and unnaturally obsessive on the point. I must suppose that you agree with those assessments.

Now I know that my behavior seems to disturb a lot of people around here who may have a more genteel notion of how we all should behave, and I do apologize for disturbing the dinner party atmosphere some may prefer.

But if you have any capability of standing outside yourself and looking at your own behavior, you might ask yourself if the very complaints that you have about me aren't exactly the complaints that Republicans and independents have about your tirades when it comes to Bush. Why the obsession? they wonder. Why the anger? How can such a person, who can find nothing good in Bush -- nothing -- possibly be taken seriously?

Should their dismissal of your arguments be accepted? Don't you think you might protest, look, just because I have strong feelings about Bush doesn't mean my arguments aren't important to listen to, and don't stand on their own merits.

Of course, I doubt that you have that ability to step back from your own behavior and see the parallels. Your mind is likely so distorted by your own partisanship that you cannot now or ever see yourself as others see you.

It is therefore ironic, of course, that it is partisanship which is your precise complaint about me.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 10, 2008 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Please -- if she's "Hillary", then call them "Barack" and "John". Otherwise, call her "Clinton", like "Obama" and "Edwards". Little pet peeve of mine....

Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Donald,

If we 'count' Clinton's work as legal counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee as a job in which she was working for 'change,' can we at least subtract the sixteen years she worked as an attorney for Rose Law Firm (1976-1992)?

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

People who complain about the media's viciousness to clinton should look at some comments on liberal blogs. Even liberal blog readers don't like her much. The fact that she has a lot of animosity directed towards her is now a fact, and not just confined to anyone political group. -- Jor at 11:32 pm

I believe that you are the same person who made this statement before. You are a new poster and you seem to be part of a regular group of people who have been coming to liberal blogs in just the last few weeks and are, either spewing hatred towards Hillary Clinton, or trying to point out how much people on liberal blogs dislike her.

I have been reading this blog for years and people disagree, but your attitude is extremely atypical. You seem to have only one agenda—and it is getting old.

Posted by: emmarose on January 10, 2008 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

If we 'count' Clinton's work as legal counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee as a job in which she was working for 'change,' can we at least subtract the sixteen years she worked as an attorney for Rose Law Firm (1976-1992)?

So all that pro bono work on behalf of children doesn't count?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

I have been reading this blog for years and people disagree, but your attitude is extremely atypical. You seem to have only one agenda—and it is getting old.

Some of the newbies have the whiff of a "shop" about them, don't they?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Trying to analyze voters according to policy preference is a waste of time. Voters only have a general sense of policy, and because there isn't much difference in the policy positions of the three Democrats, it basically comes down to personality and who voters identify with (i.e., Hillary did well because the women in NH supported her disproportionately).

Posted by: DevilDog on January 10, 2008 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Donald,

This is becoming a rather unpleasant place to spend time. You 'realists,' cheerfully advocating for all Dem candidates, regardless of position, are becoming a drag on open and free communication. I come here for information about the candidates since a candidate's job (in debates, speeches, etc.) is to confuse and appeal to as many people as possible. In my mind, Clinton and Obama have been particularly guilty of this, probably because they have the most to lose by being forthright. I expect to hear opinion in these comments, sometimes to my liking, sometimes not, occasionally I learn something I didn't know before. But you and some others are constantly saying "Shh! Don't say that. We're Democrats. Be loyal to all Democrats." Well, b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.

I'd also like to know why Dilan Esper got banned. I defended him a few nights ago on a 'freedom of speech' level (this comment endangered the 'tone' according to the moderater by an unseemly use of the word 'murder') and subsequently visited his blog. He's an extremely well-spoken and thoughtful blogger.

[Dilan Esper got banned because he was a one-issue commenter who derails every thread with his anti-Hillary obsession. He got a bit better treatment than most who are banned. I provided his URL for those who wanted to continue to read his stuff. --Mod]

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Some of the newbies have the whiff of a "shop" about them, don't they?

Blue Girl, they certainly do. If they are trying to promote Obama, they are not doing him any service.

It makes me wonder if they really are just Karl Rove wannabes, trying to sow dissension in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: emmarose on January 10, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS: Sure it counts, just not 16 years worth. And what does 'pro bono' legal work have to do with 'change' anyway? I'm sure you'll be able to 'stretch' the meaning of change to include pro bono work.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think Iraq as an issue will be what determines where Richardson's supporters go. He tends to pull from Democrats, not independents, and Democrats are more likely to support HRC than either Edwards or Obama. The percentages go up and down depending on the poll, but she has a lot of loyalty from that voting block.

Income and party affiliation are more consistent indicators of candidate support than very specific issues like Iraq or global warming. HRC does poll better among Hispanics than Obama and (I think) Edwards. So, overall, I expect the bulk of Richardson supporters will go to HRC, though the other two will pick up a share. If Richardson endorses someone (and much of that endorsement rides on whterh he is actively courting one of them for a VP slot), then I would expect to see the builk of the supporters go to that candidate.

Posted by: fercryinoutloud on January 10, 2008 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

for people who don't know jack about NM politics and Richardson's prestige factor, please STFU. Richardson would suffer big time if he finishes last again.

Posted by: bob on January 10, 2008 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

'It makes me wonder if they really are just Karl Rove wannabes, trying to sow dissension in the Democratic primary.'

No, probably not. Btw, Emma Rose, I haven't even chosen a candidate yet, so don't confuse my anti-Clinton position with being pro-Obama. But, back to your comment. I just saw that dear Karl has written a piece in the WSJ on "Why Hillary Won." That should be amusing, or sickening, one or the other.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

They all suck. First one off their knees gets my vote.

Sheesh what losers

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Posted by: daCascadian on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sure you'll be able to 'stretch' the meaning of change to include pro bono work.

Excuse me? What are you implying here? I'll 'stretch' the meaning?

Pro bono means what it means - and it is not a stretch to include working for the rights of children as working for change, when her work on their behalf was to better their lot.

I was supporting Richardson until tonight. I'll probably support Clinton now - but I'm reserving judgment - I want to make sure my support is not based on emotion, and I am extremely pissed off about the politics of the pile-on right now.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

As I've learned from watching The West Wing on DVD, it's not just what people believe, but how important that belief is to them. I'm guessing that those people who rated it important that the US pull out of Iraq as soon as possible were people who had other higher priorities in selecting Clinton over Obama. Their priorities may or may not match those of Richardson supporters.

Posted by: don Hosek on January 10, 2008 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

[Dilan Esper got banned because he was a one-issue commenter who derails every thread with his anti-Hillary obsession. He got a bit better treatment than most who are banned. I provided his URL for those who wanted to continue to read his stuff. --Mod]

I respectfully disagree. Looking quickly up the thread I see him comment on Maureen Dowd in defense of her 'style.' I haven't read the whole thread but I'll take a further look. As I said in my comment. Dilan's blog is exceptionally good although it seems to have ended as of December 25, 2007. Off I go to read the thread to find this anti-Clinton obsession.

[The decision was made based on a recent history, and was not made lightly. It is my job to read all the comments on all the threads, and some of the comments on other threads have been deleted. --Mod]

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

The problem with that theory is that if you own a newspaper, the Clintons are quite good for business. People like reading about them, talking about them, and debating them.

'Look, Maureen Dowd personalizes and trivializes EVERYTHING. That's her style. The only thing that is surprising is that anyone is still surprised when she does it.'

'Saying that one admires Hillary Clinton and thinks she is one of the best of a good group of Democratic candidates (which I believe is an accurate statement of Kevin's position) doesn't make him responsible for everything either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever did or said.'

'Look, the column wasn't very good. She is clearly falling for the sexist garbage that Hillary isn't allowed to show emotion. But whoever is in power, Maureen Dowd writes the same column.'

OK, I think I got most of them. Shocking. Really shocking anti-Clinton obsession. And, oh so rude! Foul language too. GIVE ME A BREAK!
And I hope you'll be honest enough not to delete this post.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS,

Yes, I am accusing you of stretching the meaning of pro bono to include 'change.' I helped an elderly friend who had diabetes for FIVE years. I set the alarm at 3 AM so that I could call her to make sure she wasn't hypoglycemic. I did her shopping. I would run to her house when she didn't answer the phone. I wasn't fighting for 'change.' I was fighting for her life! Dammit, BGRS. I don't want to be angry with you but any criticism of any candidate, but particularly Hillary, is stomped down by you and Donald and others. I've had it with your realistic approach to politics.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

Moderator,

You don't have to tell me you've deleted Dilan Esper posts in other threads. I've protested before!

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

That was a very gracious thing for you to do, and I admire and respect your efforts on behalf of your neighbor.

But did any policies change or evolve because of it?

I am looking beyond the convention. I don't want to hand the right wingnuts a loaded gun to use against the Democratic nominee, and I sure as hell don't want the ammunition to come from the comments section of a liberal blog.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS:

"But did any policies change or evolve because of it?" - I specifically stated that it was NOT a fight for change, anymore than Hillary's work on the Children's Defense fund was. Both her and my efforts were about filling in the slack until government acted, which of course, it hasn't.

" I don't want to hand the right wingnuts a loaded gun..."

I understand WHY you're doing it. I think you're being paranoid. I simply do not remember, at least in the last two elections, the Republicans using Dem blog comments as a weapon.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure if you can really count pro bono work unless she entered the legal field specifically for that work (part of the reason Edwards seems to, at least after his son died) because you are legally required to do so many hours of pro bono work. Her whole "working for change for 35 years" is just an attempt to hedge against the Change Obama and Edwards message after the Experience mantra didn't work. In fact, it's sad that after 35 years, she can't point to anything she has changed. Obama can point to anti-lobbyist ethics bills he has helped pass in Congress and his bill to get interrogations video-taped in Illinois, which given the recent issue of torture and how Clinton has tried to have it both ways on this (early in the campaign, she had my support when she spoke out against torture, but then she drew it back a bit and started to lose me. Even Andrew Sullivan was starting to warm to her over torture before she hedged her bets to move to the center on that). The nearest thing to an accomplishment she has was failing to pass universal healthcare. Bush spent many years as a businessman in Texas, but just wasted his dad's friends' money, which makes him an experienced but unsuccessful businessman. When you spend decades on something yet cannot point to any concrete accomplishments, it suggests that you may be incompetent in execution.

"I want to make sure my support is not based on emotion, and I am extremely pissed off about the politics of the pile-on right now."

What does pile-on even mean? Are politicians supposed to not go after their opponent? Members of Clinton's campaign explicitly used racist rhetoric to smear Obama. Having the two more liberal nominees, especially on foreign policy, take her on is not "piling on," especially as she seems to think that we are supposed to just give her the nomination for being her.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

The pile-on I'm pissed off about came from the press.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Reality Man,

BGRS means she doesn't want blog commenters to 'pile on' any of the candidates because the Republicans might use those comments against the eventual candidate.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I'm keeping a catalog of all the nasty things the right is saying about Huckabee - specifically to throw back at them should he be the nominee.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

ah, ah, ah...not quite accurate, BGRS.

"I am looking beyond the convention. I don't want to hand the right wingnuts a loaded gun to use against the Democratic nominee, and I sure as hell don't want the ammunition to come from the comments section of a liberal blog" - BGRS

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

"I understand WHY you're doing it. I think you're being paranoid. I simply do not remember, at least in the last two elections, the Republicans using Dem blog comments as a weapon.
Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK"

Exactly. Most people don't even care. The liberal blogsphere, including commenters, is probably well under 200,000 people. It doubt it is much more than 100,000. This is one of the most popular liberal blogs and it's a big discussion if there are 100 comments and even then a lot of them are back-and-forth between the same people. Let the candidates follow Reagan's 11th Commandment if they wish, but if members of the base cannot openly discuss things, we'll just end up being too clever by half and tripping ourselves up.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 10, 2008 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

So now my perceptions are "not quite accurate"? Please do enlighten me.

I'll take my answer off the air - I've stalled as long as I dare on this GAO report on port security (or the lack thereof) that I'm supposed to be summarizing.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks so much, Reality Man. I'm wired and I'm getting tired of BGRS, Donald and others hitting on me every time I make an anti-Clinton remark, and believe me, mine are certainly not of the pile-on variety. Who knows, I might even end of voting for her! I have also been fighting the moderator here. See my posts at 1:38 AM, 1:39 AM, etc. Whew. What a world...

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

Your response to Reality Man:

"The pile-on I'm pissed off about came from the press."

Your response to me:

"I am looking beyond the convention. I don't want to hand the right wingnuts a loaded gun to use against the Democratic nominee, and I sure as hell don't want the ammunition to come from the comments section of a liberal blog."

So which is it, the press or blog comments?

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Believe it or not, I have the cognitive ability to be pissed off in the hear and now and think ahead. (Especially since I'm doing the same thing to use against them.) Hope that clears it up.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

*here and now.

I gotta finish my post and hit the rack...

Goodnight.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

"I was supporting Richardson until tonight. I'll probably support Clinton now - but I'm reserving judgment - I want to make sure my support is not based on emotion, and I am extremely pissed off about the politics of the pile-on right now."

Well, join the crowd. I currently have no candidate that I support. Looks like we're going to have Obama and Clinton to choose from. I could go either way, but not until I do a lot more research about Obama. I hope that the research I do on Obama turns out to be in his favor, because voting for Clinton will not be a happy moment for me. In fact, I may not vote at all in that case. Goodnight.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

I was mad about the way that the press piled on Kanye West after his accurate "Bush doesn't care about black people" comment, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him for president. Resentment is never a good reason to support somebody. I really wish someone like Boxer had run before because 1) we would have had a real liberal run with actual accomplishments and experience instead 2) she would probably have made a decent president and set a good standard against which future female candidates could be judged (the opposite of how because black people served in the bureaucracy of the corrupt Grant administration, white people used it as evidence that you couldn't trust black people with power) and 3) she might have actually won and saved us from the Bush dynasty.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

PS: Good luck with your effort against Huckabee. I think you're wasting your time unless you have nothing else more important to do.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS...Sorry about that last phrase "unless you have nothing more important to do." It was petty and mean. But I STILL don't think your 'blogger comment' strategy is worth a hill of beans.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:55 AM | PERMALINK

Reality Man,

I agree about someone like Boxer, or in fact Boxer herself! (gr) I'd like to keep you company here tonight but I'm just too worn-out from all the friction. Off to bed.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

I still don't get why people think "35 years working for change" is some sort of exaggeration on Ms. Clinton's part.

In 1969, she was the first student ever to address Wellesley College's graduating class, having led a student movement that successfully changed the college's grading and admissions policies.

This is an easily researchable fact.

Posted by: wobbly on January 10, 2008 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

"No, hosting tea for foreign dignitaries doesn't count as foreign policy experience."

Andrew -- and you wonder why women are getting sick of the crap floating around. I first heard the tea party line from Obama and it diminished him some for me. Doesn't mean I won't support him because I will....but what a stupid comment.

Posted by: Pat on January 10, 2008 at 4:23 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary is not the favored candidate amongst those who want to end the war immediately Kevin, don't make yourself look bad saying that.

It's pretty obvious that wasn't the primary issue for most of Hillary's voters in this Democratic primary, especially since it's reasonable to assume most Democrats feel that whoever wins the primary will bring the troops home (in whatever timeframe is judged most prudent by that candidate).

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

nepeta: "If we 'count' Clinton's work as legal counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee as a job in which she was working for 'change,' can we at least subtract the sixteen years she worked as an attorney for Rose Law Firm (1976-1992)?"

I think you're moving the goalposts on me, since my original post was to your comment about her political activism at age 25 in 1973. But, that aside, I think you've asked a very fair question about her time with the Rose Law Firm.

Remember that 12 years of that time, she was Arkansas' first lady, and I do know that she was very much involved in the general and comprehensive overhaul of the Arkansas public education system in the mid-'80s.

However, it is also a fact that Gov. Bill Clinton's salary was only $30,000 annually, and she was therefore the primary breadwinner for the family during that period. In effect, becuse of his obviously substandard salary, she was subsidizing his service as governor for Arkansas taxpayers.

I do remember that Mrs. Clinton's rise to prominence in the legal profession and her work in education reform led her to be named one of the country's 100 most influential American attorneys for a couple of years in the mid-'80s, while ironically, her husband toiled in near-anonimity as governor of a small state. I always thought that was sort of interesting, especially considering Bill Clinton's own subsequent rise to national prominence following his role in the 1988 Democratic Nationl Convention (when he gave the most long-winded speech I've ever heard in my life, bar none).

So I think it's a mixed bag. I'd really have to do more research about that period of Hillary's life before I could engage you in a more comprehensive discussion of her accomplishments and her legal career in Little Rock. But I think it's fair to say that she probably didn't spend those 16 years in question as head of Rose Law Firm's pro bono division.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 10, 2008 at 5:10 AM | PERMALINK

What's all this bullshit about "experience"? Two words - George Bush

The current Doorknob-In-Chief has lowered the bar so low that the average janitor or garbageman is now qualified to be President of the United States. The word "experience" should not even enter into this year's presidential race....

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 10, 2008 at 5:59 AM | PERMALINK

Who knows where the Richardson folks will go? I worked as a caucus manager in Iowa for Edwards and in our caucus there were only about 5 or 6 of 108 people who showed up for Richardson. Other Edwards supporters and myself were able to convince two or three to join the Edwards caucus and severa remained neutral. They are probably feeling a bit like me. Although my candidate remains in the race it looks like it will be very difficult for him to find a path to the nomination at this point. Therefore, because I honestly feel that the other two frontrunners would not be as strong in the general election as would Edwards, I am left at sea. My gut tells me that Clinton will face even fiercer headwinds and will not be able to bring as many independents and new voters to the democrats as Obama, but he faces headwinds of his own based on the fact he has only served a few years in national office (although I think Cllintons' claims to 35 years of experience are ludicrous). I'll be watching and waiting to see what happens next. I'd like nothing better that for my party to come to it senses and realize Edwards actually has the best chance to broaden our congressional majority, but if that doesn't happen, I think I'd have an easier time putting energy and money into an Obama campaign.

Posted by: progressivedem on January 10, 2008 at 6:56 AM | PERMALINK

The current Doorknob-In-Chief has lowered the bar so low that the average janitor or garbageman is now qualified to be President of the United States

I suspect the doorknob got elected in part because there were few perceived international threats in 2000. I think folks will be looking for a steady hand next November.

Posted by: B on January 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM | PERMALINK

Hey frankly0! You'd always be welcome at any dinner party of mine.

Posted by: Lucy's frankly0 Appreciation Committee on January 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

From the very start of the race, I supported Richardson - even with a little money though it was clear from the start that he was not among the top three candidates. While I believe his experience in government was the top reason for my support, I do not translate that quality to Hillary. Hillary is too much vested in past politics, is too much a part of the DC establishment, too subject to financial and foreign government lobbiest to be the best choice.
And she is too quick to follow the military path, not the diplomatic way of engaging "the enemy" for my tastes.

Posted by: Isernia on January 10, 2008 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

"...New Hampshire voters who wanted to get out of Iraq favored Hillary Clinton over both Obama and Edwards."

Hmm. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't put too much faith in the polls that established this "fact".

Posted by: Bob M on January 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary took a leave of absence from the Rose Law firm to officially head up Governor Bill Clinton's educational reform in Arkansas, which was successful. She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992.

I really don't know why people don't take the time to detailed research if they are interested in a candidate's background and experience.

Both Obama and Clinton are strong on experience. They have excelled at most of what they have undertaken.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 10, 2008 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

I know I am spitting into the wind, even on a progressive blog, but the "international threats" are overblown. Our current military might is more than enough to take on any real threat to our national security and any credible threat will generate international cooperation. Hell, even the restoration of monarchy in Kuwait allowed us to gin up overwhelming support.

What we need isn't someone who will use and abuse the military for adventurism, but someone who recognizes the things that actually affect Americans - how many people a year did this board calculate are lost to "amenable mortality?" How many people a year are lost to automobile accident? Compare those numbers to international terrorism. Hell, if you want to be generous compare just the numbers in the United States to terrorism world wide. There is no contest.

Yes, experience matters. The lesson of George the Doorknob isn't that anyone can be President. He has proven that taking someone only qualified to be a trainee on the midnight shift at Dairy Queen and making them President is a terrible idea. But both Clinton and Obama are far more qualified than Bush is right now.

Posted by: heavy on January 10, 2008 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't you just say in the post BELOW THIS ONE that it was just one state?

Now you're making all voters generalizations?

Thwacky! Whiplash!

Posted by: MNPundit on January 10, 2008 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Give Obama and his campaign credit, in his New Hampshire concession speech he was dog-whistling like crazy for any voters pulling for Richardson on ethnic grounds -- ¡Si, se puede!", indeed.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on January 10, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

New Hampshire voters who wanted to get out of Iraq favored Hillary Clinton over both Obama and Edwards. ... if voters supporting conventional "experienced" candidates end up supporting another experienced candidate when their guy drops out.

—Kevin Drum

Once again, I think all this parsing ignores the elephant in the room. In New Hampshire, women came out in far greater than expected numbers and voted disproportionately for HRC. Most reasonable folks suspect this occurrence was -- rightly or wrongly -- a last minute sympathy vote triggered by mistreatment of HRC. Put simply, a significant gender gap has re-emerged -- if it ever disappeared, that is. The anecdotal evidence supporting this is truly overwhelming. If this gap persists, Hillary wins.

Now, playing devil's advocate by looking for other factors is fine as long as, when one is found, we carefully assess its relationship with the elephant in the room. To consider the impact of HRC's late developing and successful strategy in New Hampshire to get out a large female vote as "just one of many factors," and then proceed to attribute causation to other factors that are correlated with it is ridiculous.

I know that many women are offended by a man contending that women voted for a woman -- simply because she was a woman. But, in this case, it looks like that is exactly what happened -- with some justification, I might add. There simply is no evidence the huge female turnout and their disproportionate vote for HRC in New Hampshire can be attributed to differences on issues. It transcended the issues. It shifted the relationship between HRC's stand on the issues and her favourability upward among voters.

HRC's stand on many issues makes her very attractive to women. If, in addition to that effect, there is a sympathy (or whatever it should be called) vote, Obama is in trouble -- and so is St. McCain, Rudy, Mittster, or the Huckster.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 10, 2008 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Excellent news for Hillary.

The guy with the anti-Midas touch, the one who could not beat the worst President in American history, is endorsing Obama!

Posted by: gregor on January 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS: Sure it counts, just not 16 years worth. And what does 'pro bono' legal work have to do with 'change' anyway? I'm sure you'll be able to 'stretch' the meaning of change to include pro bono work.

LOL...do you even know what the accepted definition of legal pro bono work is? Do you know what Clinton's pro bono work focused on?

Look, nepeta, you're starting to look pretty foolish on this point. First you sniff that Clinton is exaggerating the age at which she started working for change, when her resume is quite well known and, since you missed it all these years, available to you in seconds if you care to look. Corrected on this point, you move the goalposts and start arguing rather ridiculously that the work she's done on behalf of children isn't really change because...only working within the government is working for change. (WTF?)

One can make a good argument that, when it comes to earning our votes, the excellent public-service work Clinton has done throughout her adult life (much of which hasn't even been discussed in this thread) doesn't cancel out some of her other actions on behalf of corporate interests. Hell, I could make it myself if I were in the mood. But you're not making it here. You're just flailing.

little ole jim is right. Research is your friend.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

To clarify, the quote at the top of my last post is not BGRS speaking; it's nepeta speaking to BGRS.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

The guy with the anti-Midas touch ... is endorsing Obama!

Hopefully, the Obama team is smart enough not to use him as a highly visible surrogate on TV. No matter whom one is for -- HRC, Obama, or Edwards -- the prospect of listening to John Kerry over the next 9 months is frightening.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

This is a place where CNN exit polling informationis quite useful. Based on the CNN data, one possibility is that the dominant effect of Richardson's withdrawal depends on whether their next choice is based on electability (in which they will support Obama) or on leadership qualities (in which case they will support Hillary Clinton). I am guessing leadership, but in any event, the proof will be in new polls.

Here is the basis for my statements.

The intended way to read the CNN tables is to examine questions such as whether a voter thinks that candidate X is the best at Y, and then ask who that person voted for. For instance, 38% of respondents think that Hillary Clinton is the strongest leader, and of this subgroup 87% voted for her. This is not surprising. But now let's transpose the table. What if we ask what a candidate's supporters think of the *other* candidates? CNN has given enough information that it can be estimated from their tables, simply by reading down the column representing people who voted for Candidate X, then applying a correction factor based on the fraction who named a candidate as being best at Y. (At the end of this post I will explain how this can be done.)

In general, the results are still not surprising. Richardson voters think that their candidate would be the best Commander-in-Chief, is most likely to unite the country, is the strongest leader, and is most honest and trustworthy of all the candidates. However, there is one surprise. When asked who has the best chance of winning in November, very few Richardson voters named their own candidate. Instead, they said "Obama" over "Clinton" by a 3 to 1 margin.

From the survey, one can infer these facts about New Hampshire Richardson voters:
- 75% think Obama has the best chance of winning in November; 25% think Clinton.
- 79% think Richardson would be the best Commander-in-Chief (17% Clinton, 3% Obama).
- 85% think Richardson is most likely to unite the country (8% Kucinich, 7% Obama).
- 77% think Richardson is the strongest leader (16% Hillary, 7% Obama).
- 85% think Richardson is most honest and trustworthy (8% Kucinich, 7% Obama).

Based on the minority repsonses , it appears that Richardson supporters might think that Clinton would be a better Commander-in-Chief and a stronger leader than Obama. Therefore I suggest the following synthesis: the direction of the Richardson voter diaspora will depend on whether they go with electability (Obama) or strong leadership (Clinton).

* * *

As an addendum, here's the mathematical reasoning, using a simple example.

Of all survey respondents, 35% think that Clinton has the best chance in November; 2% of these people voted for Richardson - or 35% * 2% = 0.7% of all respondents. 44% think that Obama has the best chance, and 5% of these people voted for Richardson, or 44% * 5% = 2.2% of all respondents. Not enough Richardson voters replied with the name of any other candidate, including their own, to show up in the survey. Therefore it appears that 75% of Richardson voters (2.2% of all respondents) think that Obama has the best chance of winning in November, but only 25% (0.7% of all respondents) think Clinton does.

After all of this, I do sound one note of caution. Richardson's support was small, only 4.3% of this sample, or about 84 respondents. So all of these numbers have tremendously large margins of error. However, this is unlikely to affect my central conclusions.

Posted by: Sam W on January 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, we want out of Iraq!

So let's vote for the person who has unapologetically endorsed the war from the beginning: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Whatever.

Posted by: chuck on January 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

little ole jim: "Hillary took a leave of absence from the Rose Law firm to officially head up Governor Bill Clinton's educational reform in Arkansas, which was successful. She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992. I really don't know why people don't take the time to detailed research if they are interested in a candidate's background and experience."

Thanks for filling us in. I knew that she was involved in the rform effort, but was unsure as to whether she had taken leave from Rose Law Firm, hence my caveat to nepeta that I needed to do further research.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 10, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

With Richardson, Biden, and Dodd out of the race, I expect to see a big surge for Gravel.

Posted by: AJ on January 10, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Just a reminder that Jay's friend was wrong. Here's the last poll reporting before the election. Suffolk:

Joe Biden (BY-Den) 0 0%
Hillary Clinton 169 34%
Christopher Dodd 0 0%
John Edwards 75 15%
Dennis Kucinich 2 0%
Barack Obama 194 39%
Bill Richardson 18 4%
Undecided 38 8%
Refused 2 0%

0----------------------------
Biden and Dodd's votes were allocated the relevant polls. And Obama's lead held.

Posted by: jayackroyd on January 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Jim,

Just say no to Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. This is American, not some kingdom where dynasties exchange the throne every 4 or 8 years.

I've heard this comment many times and I think it really shows a lack of understanding. A husband and a wife do NOT make a dynasty. For crying out loud, Hillary is a Clinton by marriage! Would you feel better if she used her maiden name?

My God, Man, look beyond the labels! How can anyone think "The Clintons (TM)" are a dynasty or in anyway compare to the family Bush is beyond me. Learn your history!

Posted by: Tripp on January 10, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

It's the race for Commander-in-Chief not Legislator-In-Chief. Microcosm debates about who's got more legislative experience sorta misses the whole point that there is NO experience sufficient to prepare someone to be President. The closest would governor of a large state.

Either way, both sides can quibble back and forth on the details to their hearts delight. What is true is that both candidates (and I would argue all candidates) have sufficient experience to be president. The debate shouldn't be about experience it should be about tone, personality, ability to work with the others, and electability. Viewed through that lens, Obama is the only candidate that makes sense.

Posted by: Nobcentral on January 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Gov. Richardson militarized the immigration issue by being the first to send the National Guard to 'protect' the New Mexico border against indigenous Western Hemisphere people from migrating north. It was a purely political manuever. Gov. Richardson is not a moderate, liberal or leftist, but a perfect bureaucrat, who makes arbitrary decisions without consideration for the suffering they cause.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

That's great, John Kerry. Like Barack Obama really needs the support of the guy who folded up in the '04 campaign like a cheap lawn chair. Maybe he'll keep you around as a poignant reminder of what not to do.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Nobcentral: "The debate shouldn't be about experience it should be about tone, personality, ability to work with the others, and electability. Viewed through that lens, Obama is the only candidate that makes sense."

Our sentiments exactly.

Posted by: David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson & Andrew Sullivan on January 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

B,
I suspect the doorknob got elected in part because there were few perceived international threats in 2000. I think folks will be looking for a steady hand next November.

I think in 2000 many people thought "Things are good, but we need to keep all that and make it better," especially for those people who understand 'better' to mean decency in the Whitehouse, a ban on abortion, and no birth control funded by the Federal Government anywhere.

Even I, who did NOT vote for Bush, thought "Well, how bad can it be?" after he was elected.

I certainly found out. So did a lot of other people. We are in a recession. The stock market has barely regained its prior value. The housing market is in the toilet. There are a record number of foreclosures. And, in case anyone cares, the world hates our government. Oh, and the dollar has slumped, and gas prices are up, and our military is mired in a moneypit called Iraq.

Posted by: Tripp on January 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Gov. Richardson militarized the immigration issue by being the first to send the National Guard to 'protect' the New Mexico border against indigenous Western Hemisphere people from migrating north.

Yes it is exactly that simple. [/eyerolling] Look, I'm no Lou Dobbs spear carrier. But c'mon. Don't you live in a border state? If not, talk to someone who does. There is a very real problem and the citizens of those states do bear a huge economic burden, the education system suffers, the health care system is negatively impacted. It is not as simple - not as mean-spirited as you portray it.

It was a purely political manuever.

By a politician! Horrors!

Gov. Richardson is not a moderate, liberal or leftist, but a perfect bureaucrat, who makes arbitrary decisions without consideration for the suffering they cause.

A perfect bureaucrat, by definition, does not make "arbitrary" decisions.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK
....The debate shouldn't be about experience it should be about tone,.... Nobcentralat 11:10 AM
Indeed, we need to change the tone in Washington


Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget that John Kerry was the electable candidate, the experienced candidate, the candidate that all the core Democratic voters felt comfortable with.....

Posted by: Quinn on January 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Arbitrary decision making is the definition of bureaucracy.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget that John Kerry was the electable candidate, the experienced candidate, the candidate that all the core Democratic voters felt comfortable with.....

It must mean something that our most "electable" candidate couldn't defeat the worst president ever.

Posted by: AJ on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Be better for the dems if kerry endorsed mccaine

Posted by: survivin in tejas on January 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I've had it with your realistic approach to politics.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on any thread. The fantasy-based approach has worked sooo well for the last seven years.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

I live in a border state and have to suffer the pronouncements of ultra-conservative local politicians about the 'immigration crisis'. Surveying my community, I am unable to find any crisis or any legitimate basis for the braying of the demagogues. The ultra-conservatives have tapped into the immigration issue because they know Americans have an inclination to blame others of a different ethnicity for any problems they percieve, real or imagined.

The only crisis I am aware of is the ecological one. When W. Bush closed the border crossings to undocumented immigrants, they went through the wilderness and have caused environmental damage. That crisis is not solved by sending troops to the border.

Ultra-conservatives using immigration as a wedge issue to create conflict amongst progressives and liberals is bad enough, but when a Democratic governor actually commits troops and militarizes the issue, we should be alarmed. Richardson may have trumped the ultra-conservative Republicans in his and my state by sending troops to the border, as the governor of my state did immediately afterwards, but it creates a dangerous precedent to threaten military violence over an issue of human rights. That is why I dislike Richardson and am glad he is leaving the race.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Do you know any school teachers or health care professionals?

How about low-income people affected by depressed wages?

There is an issue and there is an undeniable economic impact.

Which is why I favor throwing the book at the businesses hiring undocumented workers.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

I've heard this comment many times and I think it really shows a lack of understanding. A husband and a wife do NOT make a dynasty.

That's a valid point, but isn't the concern that whether or not it is a "dynasty", we don't want to move too far in the direction of a presidential politics where the brand names "Bush" and "Clinton" freeze out other-- perhaps superior-- candidates?

Posted by: dem'08 on January 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0,

Strained & false equivalences between the respective criticisms of Obama & Bush aside (the suggestion that your constant sniping at Obama & his supporters bears even the slightest similarity to the valid criticisms of Bush & his legacy is, well, laughable), there isn't anything wrong with Krugman's complaints. While I (mostly) agree with him on the merits of his argument, I disagree with him on the politics of the issue for a couple of reasons. First, as Tim Noah
has pointed out, the Democrat arguing for insurance mandates has painted a pretty fat bull's-eye on her back in a head-to-head matchup with the Republican who's going to say, "Big Brother will steal your wages if you don't buy a health insurance policy!" How many potential votes does that jeopardize -- particularly in purple states? Second, should her candidacy survive without those votes, the would-be-President Clinton's insurance mandates require passage in the Senate, not presidential proclamation, and unless Clinton's got the kind of coattails that ensure her the necessary number of Senators for passage of her plan, it's a nonstarter. So where would that leave her with regard to health insurance? With Obama's plan. So which one of them was being pragmatic & which one was being unreasonably hopeful?

I won't even address Dowd & whatever her issues are, simply because I don't read her. She adds nothing to any discussion -- of anything. (Obambi, anyone?) That has nothing to do with partisanship, of course, since it's not as if she's supporting an alternative position or candidate. It's vapid. And it's personal. And this is where you start to slide from the more substantive, Krugman-esque criticisms (and you have a few good ones) into more personal, Dowd-riffic rants about Obama's "wretchedness." But, without any trace of irony, you show up & say that it's Dowd who's out of line. It has nothing to do with etiquette, as you'd like to suggest with your dinner party comment, and everything to do with hypocrisy.

Posted by: junebug on January 10, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

My final attempt at explaining my view here, starting with little quibbling matters and proceeding to larger ones:

Change - I have no interest in arguing who has the best record on 'political' change. The whole issue is becoming so ridiculous that pretty soon having eggs for breakfast one day and cereal the next will be a relevant measure of the 'change' a candidate will bring to the country. That's my main reason for criticizing Clinton's exaggerated claims for having been an agent of change for 35 years. I have no problem in talking about her 'accomplishments' or her 'experience.'

I'm well past the point where I will support any Democrat for president despite my own serious misgivings about their general political leanings. I don't appreciate being accused of being 'stupid' or an 'ass' for this position. What I see in Clinton is a DLC Dem who voted for the AUMF, sponsored an anti-flag burning amendment, and attends the weekly fundie Senate Prayer Meeting (perhaps the only Dem in that group?) To her credit I see that ADA gives her a 95% positive score on her Senate vote record. Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA and WTO make me worry that Hillary might endorse similar measures. She has been the major Dem supporter of the Iraq War. I supported her Senate campaign (both vocally and financially) here in New York but will certainly do neither in this campaign.

Finally, and most importantly, I disagree with the argument that no good Dem on this forum should criticize any Dem whatsoever, apparently from a misguided notion that any negative blog comment will be snapped up by the Republicans to use against this candidate. Hey, this is an internet forum. People let off steam. People have fun making less-than-balanced remarks. But people also have serious concerns about Democratic candidates. It's not like Dems have had such an excellent track record over the last seven years, in my opinion, regardless of the obstacles they've faced. A lot more serious criticism - and I mean vocal criticism, not sound bytes - has been in order. If I'm out of bounds for saying these things in a Dem forum, perhaps I should look for a slightly more friendly environment.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

The whole issue is becoming so ridiculous that pretty soon having eggs for breakfast one day and cereal the next will be a relevant measure of the 'change' a candidate will bring to the country.

You sound like one of our more denial-cloaked winger trolls right now...shades of "You Dems call it torture when the Gitmo inmates don't get chicken for dinner every night," and every bit as ludicrous. You're still being totally dishonest on this point. You have nothing supporting your constantly moving goalposts other than not being able to admit you said something petulantly stupid and got called on it.

I'm well past the point where I will support any Democrat for president despite my own serious misgivings about their general political leanings. I don't appreciate being accused of being 'stupid' or an 'ass' for this position.

I don't seem to be able to find the place where someone called you an "ass"--help me? Nor were you called "stupid," though some of your comments certainly were. Do you even understand the difference, or are you too busy playing an injured party?

Finally, and most importantly, I disagree with the argument that no good Dem on this forum should criticize any Dem whatsoever, apparently from a misguided notion that any negative blog comment will be snapped up by the Republicans to use against this candidate.

Spectacularly melodramatic misrepresentation of what Blue Girl said. You are shooting your own credibility through the heart with these kinds of comments.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop and BGRS don't understand that there are plenty of people who criticize prominent Democrats not because they are right wingers but because they are left wingers dissatisfied with their options.

This can, of course, go too far (see Nader 2000), but it isn't helpful to assume that obviously liberal people are just spewing a bunch of right wing talking points. It really isn't the same thing to criticize candidates as being insufficiently liberal as it is to excuse the conditions at Gitmo.

Posted by: dem'08 on January 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, I've presented my case. I have no intention of taking it further. Think of it what you will.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

This can, of course, go too far (see Nader 2000), but it isn't helpful to assume that obviously liberal people are just spewing a bunch of right wing talking points.

Show me a post where I said anything about right wing talking points. I said no such thing.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Sigh. dem'08, if you had any familiarity at all with my comments about the candidates--most of which criticize prominent Dems for their lack of progressivism--you'd be embarrassed at how far off the mark your post of 2:07 was. As it happens, I don't particularly agree with what Blue Girl actually said at 2:00 a.m. But nepeta's version of Blue Girl's statement is a highly emotional exaggeration, and I declined to let it stand.

It's not the criticism of Dems from a liberal perspective I'm arguing with; it's the paucity of nepeta's arguments in this thread. She is a completely unguided missile, relying on dishonest representations like the ones we've all noted above.

And a statement like "It really isn't the same thing to criticize candidates as being insufficiently liberal as it is to excuse the conditions at Gitmo" misses the point stunningly. I didn't say it was the same thing or accuse her of using right-wing talking points. It is, however, the exact same kind of argument, with about the same logical and rational quality.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"You sound like one of our more denial-cloaked winger trolls right now...shades of "You Dems call it torture when the Gitmo inmates don't get chicken for dinner every night," and every bit as ludicrous. You're still being totally dishonest on this point. You have nothing supporting your constantly moving goalposts other than not being able to admit you said something petulantly stupid and got called on it."

Always with the namecalling and insults huh shortstop? Amazing how one can be gone so long and everything stays the same. You should try taking a deep breath and reading your own stuff sometime, because it's very ugly and has about as much charm or "argument winnability" as a slug.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

I say this as someone who generally respects your posts and knowledge, and as someone who also respects nepeta's posts and knowledge.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

For that matter, I love blue girl red state's posts too...there's a respectful way to disagree, to engage, and I've been noticing a very troubling trend of intolerance towards dissent in "progressive" circles.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

there's a respectful way to disagree, to engage, and I've been noticing a very troubling trend of intolerance towards dissent in "progressive" circles.

I endorse Jimm's comments. It's difficult to understand why intelligent and thoughtful liberal posters feel the need to belittle those they argue with rather than just attack their arguments. Perhaps it's seen as the sport of the blogs -- but I don't think it does much for the liberal blogosphere, and it is not what "liberal" ultimately means, in my opinion.

Posted by: JS on January 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

belittle those they argue with rather than just attack their arguments.

I don't start with belittling. But I'm not above going there when the person I'm arguing with moves the goalposts and insults my intelligence.

That, and I'm girded for battle right now. I would say 'sorry if that offends' - but since that would be a lie, I won't.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
.... my main reason for criticizing Clinton's exaggerated claims for having been an agent of change for 35 years..... nepeta at 1:46 PM
While I have no interest in how you vote, I would like to point out that I linked to Clinton's record yesterday, but apparently to no effect.

Clinton, resumé
...and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964...

... became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[19] Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.[20] In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association...

...She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[32] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.[31] In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education...

There is no need to copy and paste the entire resume, it can be read from the link. Suffice it to say, her activism roles are substantial and go back a long time. The importance of all that is for each to judge, but it is unfair to deny her claim, which is accurate.

Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I don't start with belittling.

I do the belittling around here.

Is there someone who deserves a good belittling? I'll handle it. Is there someone who needs to be mocked, insulted and humiliated?

Gimme a holler.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, look. I thought my purpose in using the Gitmo comparison was clear, but since at least a couple of people haven't thought so, I'm going to assume it wasn't.

The chicken-dinners-for-inmates reference wasn't meant to be a moral equivalency to nepeta's "next a person who changes a breakfast order will be 'working for social change.'" I chose it because it was a pretty stark illustration of that kind of argument--and of what happens when someone who knows her original statement was indefensible reacts by grossly exaggerating the position of the other person to make her own stance seem more reasonable.

Gitmo is quite correctly a hot subject, and I should have seen that it might push buttons outside of what I intended it to convey. In retrospect, I should have chosen a different example of that kind of argument.

As for the rest of what you said, Jimm, I will give it some thought.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Always with the namecalling and insults huh shortstop? Amazing how one can be gone so long and everything stays the same. You should try taking a deep breath and reading your own stuff sometime, because it's very ugly and has about as much charm or "argument winnability" as a slug.

I say this as someone who generally respects your posts and knowledge, and as someone who also respects nepeta's posts and knowledge.

For that matter, I love blue girl red state's posts too...there's a respectful way to disagree, to engage, and I've been noticing a very troubling trend of intolerance towards dissent in "progressive" circles.

So why the backpedaling, Jimm? Why so quick to take a shot and step back and try to reassure everyone that you're so respectful?

There's been an epidemic of "concern trolling" around here and all you're seeing is the reaction to it. Beyond "concern trolling" there's the usual stupidity and the usual dishonest bullshit. If someone is out there calling someone on it, it's not really "personal." I think it's more "not this again."

You'll have to forgive me--I don't hang around much anymore and I tend to make things more toxic than they really need to be. [Thank God for Moderating interns] But come on--there's nothing going on here that hasn't gone on here in years past. I know. I've scoured the archives looking for things to throw back at people.

Then there's this:

I endorse Jimm's comments. It's difficult to understand why intelligent and thoughtful liberal posters feel the need to belittle those they argue with rather than just attack their arguments. Perhaps it's seen as the sport of the blogs -- but I don't think it does much for the liberal blogosphere, and it is not what "liberal" ultimately means, in my opinion.

This is what a concern troll would say if a concern troll could concern troll in a perfect way.

Thanks for the advice. It's not needed.

Ever been on this thing called the Internet? Ever been on a site like Little Green Footballs or the unmoderated forums that are attached to the various news sites where every ignorant dial-up sumbitch is able to post his favorite rant about race, religion and sexuality?

Lighten up, and quit fucking whining. The Democratic field is blessed with being diverse and professional and deep with talent.

Seen the Republicans lately? Hooooo boy.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Very persuasive Pale, we will reform forthwith.

Posted by: JS on January 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Very persuasive Pale, we will reform forthwith.

No, that's not what is needed.

Passion is good. But quit with the fucking concern trolling. I mean, it's so obvious it's not even funny.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

I can't resist responding to you. You consider me a 'concern troll?' May I remind you that you and I were the only two commenters who noticed the whole Bhutto assassination 'grief' response was pretty weird, considering her record as PM in Pakistan. On a human level, of course her assassination was a pity. You should read more upthread.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I can't resist responding to you. You consider me a 'concern troll?' May I remind you that you and I were the only two commenters who noticed the whole Bhutto assassination 'grief' response was pretty weird, considering her record as PM in Pakistan. On a human level, of course her assassination was a pity. You should read more upthread.

No, I consider the effort to call you on your ideas fairly consistent with what goes on around here. If someone thinks you're wrong, they will certainly tell you about it.

Everyone else trying to get in the way (as I am doing right now, as a matter of fact) seems to give people an excuse to comment on reasonable discourse.

As in, stop with the passionate defenses of your position, sing Kumbayah, and nominate the weakest candidate so the Republicans have a chance at winning.

I'm sorry--what you talk about upthread is kind of ridiculous. Do you really think "pro bono" work can't count towards advocating change? Because that runs smack into the face of reality--lawyers who take pro bono work have an opportunity to effect change no matter what the case turns out to be. Anyway! Better people than me called you on it. But this notion that there are too many elbows and cuss words flying is really ridiculous. That's what this place is for--a healthy expression of anger, rage, agression and frustration toughens people up, makes them support their arguments and gets people ready for prime time.

What the fuck? You're against someone, someone else is for someone--throw down and debate. Don't decry the tone when the tone itself is usually irrelevant. The tone makes it readable, if you want to be honest about it. Flat, boring academic back and forth just doesn't move things along. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

That's what this place is for--a healthy expression of anger, rage, agression and frustration

So what's that place for:
http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/

I couldn't find the anger and rage in the comments there (or the comments, for that matter).

Is that meant to be more upscale real estate?

Posted by: JS on January 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

I couldn't find the anger and rage in the comments there (or the comments, for that matter).

As long as you stay away, it'll stay upscale, I suppose.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

" Do you really think "pro bono" work can't count towards advocating change?"

Well, this particular point seems to be coming down to a semantic difference in what I assumed 'advocating for change' or whatever the most used phrase is. I think that pro bono work is absolutely, beyond all doubt, WONDERFUL and badly needed. Do I think it counts as 'change' in US policy positions? No! I have no lack of respect for Clinton's obviously excellent accomplishments and time spent helping those in need. It's seems to me that such work is similar to what many US citizens spend time and energy doing on a daily basis in the form of voluteering at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, women's shelters, etc. This sort of thing is to be greatly respected by all of us. But in the political sense of 'policy change' I just don't see it as being relevant. It shows where you heart is for sure. I'd like to see a list of Clinton's policy successes. Obviously, Obama would have a hard time competing on this level since he's much younger, although his work in Illinois, e.g., passing a bill requiring videotaping of criminal suspect interrogations, seems like an excellent 'change in policy.'

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

undeniable economic impact

Most social scientists who have studied the economic impact of undocumented immigrants have concluded they give more than they take.

As of Jan 1, 2008 my state is now 'throwing the book' at businesses that hire undocumented workers. After the second offense, their business licenses will be revoked. I think that will have an undeniable ecomomic and social impact locally. Many businesses that rely upon unskilled labor may fail. They will not fail because of the low wages they pay will not attract Americans, but because they will not be able to find decent American workers to fill these labor intensive jobs. No one wants alcoholics and heroin or meth addicts coming into their homes or yards to work. The un-addicted Americans already have better jobs.

What throwing the book at these businesses will do is stifle economic growth, put honest people out of jobs and stimulate crime, both violent and of the black market variety.

Many anti-immigrant advocates think employers will raise wages to attract Americans to do the unpleasant or labor intensive jobs immigrants do. I do not think that is correct. What employers will do is use the coming poor economy to force the children of anti-immigrant Americans to do these jobs at the same or lower wages. I think the best way to prevent the expoitation of workers by employers is to set minimum wage controls, not who can work controls.

As I have said before, I think the migrant issue is a human rights issue. Gov. Richardson's sending National Guard troops to the border does nothing to punish employers, but does signal to immigrants and anti-immigrant advocates that state sponsored violence is a solution to this issue. That is very far away from a liberal or progressive solution, and very scary.

Do you know any school teachers or health care professionals?

I know when I moved to this state there were double sessions at many elementary schools. My freshman year of high school had double sessions. This hardship was created by immigration to the state by documented Americans. Where the new developments flourished the past decade, those school districts also have had problems with overcrowding. But not from undocumented immigrants.

I know at least one parent who was concerned some children at a public school spoke Spanish, so her child is going to a charter school. My grandmother, third generation American, did not learn to speak English until she went to school, so I guess I am unsympathetic to this part of the issue.

I hear from medical professionals about how the poor exploit the system. Poor families with newborns know the hospital will give them a car seat in order to release them from hospital. They wait for the new car seat. That is a logical economic decision that the nurses I know cannot understand, even though they went to public subsidized universities.

There are probably better ways to eliminate the hardship some areas suffer from having too many immigrants than by outlawing their employment. I hope our bickering about this issue will bring some to mind. I advocate wage controls. But I do not think Gov. Richardson is interested in joining our discussion. He prefers the display of military power.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

PS: After I had told BGRS about how I had helped an elderly friend with diabetes and specifically gave this as an instance of volunteerism rather than policy changing, part of her response was:

"But did any policies change or evolve because of it?"

So, it looks like at least BGRS and I had the same definition in mind.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ah - but policies do change because of court action, so don't ascribe too many motives to me.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

" Do you really think "pro bono" work can't count towards advocating change?"

Yes and no. Obviously, pro bono work can include impact litigation, for instance, which certainly seeks to change policies and indeed can be one of the most effective mechanisms. And many fine lawyers at big firms participate in it.

It can also include working for individual clients in ways that, when multiplied, result in systemic change. E.g., a legal clinic for the homeless.

At the same time, this is clearly a Clinton talking point to defuse the fact that she was working at the Rose Law Firm, making a fair amount of money (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the bulk of her time was spent representing typical big law firm clients, not pro bono cases. And while there's nothing ipso facto wrong with working at a big law firm, it isn't wrong to say that a fair amount of what such firms do is working "against change", in the sense that they seek to secure and preserve the influence and position and wealth of their well-off clients.

On balance, I don't think it is really accurate to say she was "working for change" at the Rose Law Firm. But that doesn't mean her pro bono work wasn't admirable or important.

Posted by: dem'08 on January 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks!, dem'08. Exactly how I see it. I really would need to do some research to see how litigation increases the chance of real policy change. For example, litigation involving pharmaceutical injury has legally compensated many people for pharmaceutical harm but has yet to make a dent in the FDA/Big Pharma collaboration and ongoing lack of appropriate oversight. But yes, I think you're very close to nailing down what I was trying to express.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

So why the backpedaling, Jimm? Why so quick to take a shot and step back and try to reassure everyone that you're so respectful?

Excuse me? I just wanted to make clear that I respected the intelligence of the three posters in question, so as to more greatly emphasize my criticism of rhetorical style, not person. I didn't want it to be personal, and I truly have appreciated shortstop, nepeta, and blue girl's contributions over the years (even though I've been gone for a long time).

Pretty simple actually.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK
Ever been on this thing called the Internet? Ever been on a site like Little Green Footballs or the unmoderated forums that are attached to the various news sites where every ignorant dial-up sumbitch is able to post his favorite rant about race, religion and sexuality?

Lighten up, and quit fucking whining. The Democratic field is blessed with being diverse and professional and deep with talent.

LGF is a freaking joke, I hope that's not being set up as a standard, or as something against to be lauded because not as bad as that garbage.

Since you bring this on yourself, the whole notion of your being the "enforcer" on this site is pretty ridiculous Pale, and you really ought to tone that down.

In the end, all that ends up happening is the thread becomes unreadable, and the most sensible recourse to trolls has always been ignoring them and or moderating them out.

You're the one who needs to lighten up.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Since you bring this on yourself, the whole notion of your being the "enforcer" on this site is pretty ridiculous Pale, and you really ought to tone that down.

I specifically am referring to the faux toughness and name calling, not the beatdowns you put down on point, since obviously I don't want to suggest you don't have that capability, when you obviously do.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Passion is good. But quit with the fucking concern trolling. I mean, it's so obvious it's not even funny.

Somebody needs to take this term and blow it up, because it's massively abused and apparently a permission slip to treat dissenting opinions disrespectfully.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm,

Thanks for defending the idea of decent argument between consenting Dems (gr). I'm feeling sad today because of all this hullaballoo between people whom I've always liked at this site, although not always agreed with about strategy, candidate preference, rationale for candidate preference, etc. I'm not used to being attacked by fellow Dems but sure had my share of vicious attacks from Repubs back on the NYT forum during Clinton impeachment days. I actually kept my doors locked because of my paranoia, the attacks and threats, particularly, were that scary. So I'm sure I'll survive this adventure. I think I'll simply not respond to comments containing inappropriate name-calling, etc. I should have learned my lesson on that a long time ago.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

I specifically am referring to the faux toughness and name calling, not the beatdowns you put down on point, since obviously I don't want to suggest you don't have that capability, when you obviously do.

Sorry--that was sarcasm.

Obviously, I have no power or influence. I was referring to the inevitable snarkiness--see the poster "JS" that would follow if I tried to comment on things.

Heavens no--I have no real presence here anymore. And that's a good thing.

I'm feeling sad today because of all this hullaballoo between people whom I've always liked at this site, although not always agreed with about strategy, candidate preference, rationale for candidate preference, etc.

The thing you can do here is to keep arguing and keep fighting and don't give up on what you think is right. Who's going to court to get an injunction to make you stop posting?

Concern trolling is loosely based on giving advice to people that you hope they'll take because you know it'll harm them and help further your real agenda. If the term is being abused here, perhaps it is because the "real agendas" are simmering below the surface.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

little ole jim: "Hillary took a leave of absence from the Rose Law firm to officially head up Governor Bill Clinton's educational reform in Arkansas, which was successful."

little ole jim,

Could you provide me with a link that discusses the success of Clintion's educational reform program in Arkansas? I've been googling the subject myself today and been unable to find any site that talks about the reform in anything but negative terms. For example, most of what I've read points to the continuation of Clinton's program, developed in a think tank of the best and brightest liberals around, tinkered with some during Bill Clinton's administration, and taking it's final form in Bush's 'No Child Left Behind.' The criticism I've read certainly doesn't focus on Clinton in particular but rather on the host of other prominent liberal backers of the plan. I'd really appreciate any links you can provide. Maybe I just hit a few pages of right-wing sites. I was unable to discern what the 'politics' of the sites were because most of them were academic sites. And please don't consider this 'concern trolling.' Anything that eases my mind about Clinton greatly improves my nightly sleep capacity.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm feeling sad today because of all this hullaballoo between people whom I've always liked at this site, although not always agreed with about strategy, candidate preference, rationale for candidate preference, etc."

I wouldn't, families fight sometimes, especially when they haven't seen each other for awhile and are recongregating (like for the holidays, or in the blogosphere, elections). :)

I probably could have handled it better too, but I wasn't prepared to see you (someone I respect) get jumped like that either (by people I also respect), and ended up making some flash comments about it.

I can remember many a time battling next to Pale Rider on the front lines in these threads, and I'm sure it will happen again, so I hope we all do see this as a family dispute, and not anything deeper or unfriendlier.

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I can remember many a time battling next to Pale Rider on the front lines in these threads

Alongside, not against, if I didn't adequately make that clear, I'll always have maximum respect for Pale Rider in the face of battle. :)

Posted by: Jimm on January 10, 2008 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry about the journalizing.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm,

Thanks, I hope you're right about the family squabble aspect, although I'm ready for a break. What I really want to tell you is not to miss an absolutely breathtaking comment on the Violence in Iraq thread by mica(?) near the end of the thread. Probably the very best comment I've ever read on this site, or for the matter, anywhere else.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo..

Yeah, your comment was sort of badly timed, huh? I do that all the time myself. Forget to read upthread and either repeat what someone just said or otherwise interfere in the exchange. Anyway, Brojo, this has become sort of a little private space here and I want to tell you how much I always enjoy your comments. I feel like you're one of my soulmates on this site even though we rarely cross-post.

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

I think I just made up the word 'cross-post.'

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm and Brojo,

micahw@10:41 on the Violence in Iraq thread

Posted by: nepeta on January 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Concern trolling is loosely based on giving advice to people that you hope they'll take because you know it'll harm them and help further your real agenda.

When the "advice" is to avoid namecalling, what harm can be intended and what could the "real agenda" be?

"real agendas" are simmering below the surface.

This is better than Norman Rogers.

Posted by: JS on January 11, 2008 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

JS,

I think Pale was trying to be supportive (maybe?) by explaining what a 'concern troll' is. I'm not sure what he meant by 'real agendas simmering below the surface' either. Oh well, same way I feel when I read an economics blog. At the same time though, this has really been a 'twilight zone' night for me. Either I'm insane or something really weird is going here.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Nepeta, get some sleep. From a scan of the threads, it seems that you've had a long day.

Posted by: JS on January 11, 2008 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Pale. I finally understood your message.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, JS. A very long day. But quite an interesting one. More tomorrow.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

God, I am SOOOO embarrassed by this thread. I sound like a fucking 18-year old. Oh, well, better that than being like the several commenters (or more) for whom I've lost all respect. You guys are so fucked up. Like Pale, I'm staying as far away from you as possible. I won't be so 'nice' the next time we meet. And the really amazing part is that you all are just so ludicrous! Wow... My mind is really blown.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 6:25 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks to Pale, I finally figured it all out. Took long enough. But now I can get some sleep.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

I think Pale was trying to be supportive (maybe?)

Possibly.

I don't have anything to add. In fact, I shouldn't have added anything at all.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

God, I am SOOOO embarrassed by this thread.

Good. You should be.

I sound like a fucking 18-year old. Oh, well, better that than being like the several commenters (or more) for whom I've lost all respect.

I'm sure that those folks will manage to rally and carry on.

You guys are so fucked up. Like Pale, I'm staying as far away from you as possible. I won't be so 'nice' the next time we meet.

Gonna show a little spunk, huh? Good on ya. Politics is a blood sport. Get tough, or take up knitting.

And the really amazing part is that you all are just so ludicrous! Wow... My mind is really blown.

You were the one that said you were sick of people who are realists about politics. That goes in the stupid hall of fame. Sorry, but it's true.

You aren't the only one who lost respect for others on this thread. That is soooo a two-way street.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Nepeta I like your commments and usually follow your links. Keep up the good works. Don't let disagreements with moderates and party politics discourage you. Without people like you, they would think they are radical revolutionaries.

Posted by: Brojo on January 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

those late night posts from nepeta have to be someone spoofing her handle, or that is one crazy lady. don't know what's more embarrassing, her performance in this thread or the one just above. n, maybe next time go to bed when you say you're going to instead of sitting up drinking all night?

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Pale, You're the cryptic one, aren't you? That's OK, I love puzzles.

Brojo, Thanks for your words, but you'll have to carry the flag here, as you've done long before I arrived. But, never fear, I won't be spending any time 'knitting.'

Bye, folks. It's been enlightening.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Badly need your help. This world is given as the prize for the men in earnest; and that which is true of this world, is truer still of the world to come. Help me! Looking for sites on: Stock market tutorial. I found only this - stock market news today. Forget those self help books on love and sex. Banks toxic assets still there the accounting cannot be trusted. With best wishes :-(, Orianna from Swaziland.

Posted by: Orianna on August 14, 2009 at 6:39 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly