DLC Vs. Old School Liberals

[Brother Zag]

I liked your quick bit on the Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. As an early Obama supporter, it has been driving me nuts listening to Former Prez Clinton subtly slander Obama. The whole Reagan/Ideas thing was completely mischaracterized by the Clinton Camp (did you hear the radio ads taking the quote out of context?). The fact that Bill Clinton was a leader of the DLC and their attempts to Republicanize the Democratic Party has been conveniently overlooked by the short term memory possessed media.

The DLC's tactics served the Dems well at the time Clinton ran, post-Reagan and Bush #1. In effect, they are still running this sort of campaign, this time for Hillary: "What are people voting for? Okay, let's be like THAT!"

The Kennedy endorsement is a major sign that the DLC's grip on the Democratic Party has faltered. The first sign was Howard Dean's ascension to DNC Chair. Certainly Teddy's endorsement serves notice that the DLC is in eclipse.

Caroline's endorsement serves a different purpose and audience, I believe. Her comment that, in Obama, she feels the kind of hope that people tell her that her father gave them, is huge with young 40 somethings and younger voters who don't actually remember the JFK, or even the RFK years. Like me. We've heard the legends our whole lives (well, maybe I did even more so because I grew up in Massachusetts). In Caroline, here's someone with the cred to say what she said and make it mean something... and somehow make Obama's candidacy more historically resonant.

[Lord Destiny]

Bill and Hillary are social liberals, but economic moderate-Republicans (Hillary moreso than Bill). Bill wasn't exactly a champion of the working person, and Hillary was a Wal-Mart lawyer.

I always laughed when I heard the wailing that Clinton was a far-left liberal...until I saw people believing it.

America knows nothing about liberal politics, except what the GOP misleadingly tells them. The Dems sure aren't defending themselves or the label. They run from it. Buncha cowards.

My problem with this race is that I don't know WHAT Obama stands for. I don't want a politician to bring me hope. Hope I already have. I want a politician to bring me RESULTS. And I don't know that Obama can or will do that.

[Lord Destiny]

Let me add that I don't mean Bill didn't do anything for the working class or middle class. He did some good things, such as tax breaks for people going back to school and raising the minimum wage. But he didn't go far enough.

I like the guy (foibles notwithstanding), and will greatly enjoy him as First Husband. But it won't be much of a blow against the corporatocracy.

[Brother Zag]

I read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope before he was a candidate. Made me wish someone like that would run for president... so I'm not just basing my support on some vague promise of hope, but on some firm propositions well reasoned and explained that I was able to read over a year ago.

[NatGertler]

Me, I like the fact that long before he was a presidential candidate, the dude wrote a book. Sure, lots of candidates had books with their names on it put out when they were campaigning. Barack put out a book, and one that wasn't utterly calculated to sell himself as a candidate. That says something to me.

But that may just be the bias of one writer for another.

[Spike-X]

It would be good to have a President who's written a book before running for office.

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.





* one that either didn't have pictures, or start with 'The' and end with 'Bible', at least.

[Steven Grant]

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.

Let's not get snippy. Even if the Ghost never actually read a book, I have it on reasonably good authority he has one read to him almost every night.

- Grant

[Brother Zag]

Let's not get snippy. Even if the Ghost never actually read a book, I have it on reasonably good authority he has one read to him almost every night.

- Grant

It's the one about the Pet Goat, isn't it? I've heard he can't pull himself away from that one...

[bartl]

It would be good to have a President who's written a book before running for office.

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.
He managed to get through Yale, and got an MBA from Harvard. Even a Kennedy can't do that without cracking a book.

[Spike-X]

Well, I guess you told me!

[Brother Zag]

The Clinton Machine keeps utilizing Republican tactics. The latest iteration? The use of the "Manufactured Outrage" campaign, employed successfully time and again by Republicans and Republican administrations to generate sympathy and publicity since Reagan took office. Hillary Clinton is generating fake indignancy over MSNBC Reporter David Schuster's asking if the Clinton campaign "pimped out" daughter Chelsea. Oh, the horror!

It was a stupid thing to say on the air. Schuster is usually sharper than that. I think he's a little stiff, a little square and was trying to sound "hip" and came off anything but hip to be square... But for the Manufactured Outrage Campaign to work, there has to be some truth to the offense, and on some level what Schuster said could be construed to be offensive. And ripe to be misconstrued to be abhorrent and horrific.

Hillary is demanding Schuster's virtual head, saying a temporary suspension and apology are not enough. Shame on her. She wants to ruin his career over this, and doesn't mind saying so. The Millionaire wants the under paid cable reporter on unemployment, or worse; a demand without mercy - scorched Earth tactics. Pretty brutal.

This false bravado covering petty retribution used to be the hallmark of Republicans, who used and overused it to the point where the American people stopped believing it. Hillary and the Clinton campaign are gambling on the fact that Hillary can preface her remarks with a statement no major Republican candidate has been able to use: "As a mother...". She's playing the "gender" card in a major way, and coloring the false indignancy she's shoveling with the patina of protective motherhood. It could prove a masterstroke of manipulation, or backfire against her. We'll see.

But, yet again, the Clinton campaign's tactics are Republican tactics.

[Bradley]

But for the Manufactured Outrage Campaign to work, there has to be some truth to the offense, and on some level what Schuster said could be construed to be offensive. And ripe to be misconstrued to be abhorrent and horrific.

I don't quite understand what this means, but I think you're begging the question by assuming that I believe that the Clinton outrage over Schuster's comments is "manufactured" (that is to say, insincere). You don't think it's possible that Clinton's sincerely pissed that someone would use this type of misogynist language to describe her daughter? And her relationship with her daughter?

Keep in mind, I'm an Obama supporter-- I've got very little love for Hillary Clinton at the moment. But the assumption that she's insincere in this instance is a little much.

[Steven Grant]

But, yet again, the Clinton campaign's tactics are Republican tactics.

While I don't put it beyond Hillary to play the outraged mother for political purposes, I think in this instance she's genuinely outraged, and not without reason. Daughters have been out stumping for pretty much all their dad/mom-candidates this political season, and I don't know why Chelsea wouldn't. The phrase "pimping Chelsea out" not only casts aspersions on Chelsea - basically saying she's prostituting herself, which is very unlikely to be the case - but Hillary as well, the implication being by extension that she'd allow any sort of indignities to be heaped on Chelsea so long as she (Hillary) profited by them. Which I strongly suspect is not a case. Do I think it's a firing offense? It's not far removed from the whole Don Imus thing. I wouldn't fire either of them over their statements, and I do think an apology and suspension is enough, especially if the subject is never raised again, so, yeah, to that extent I think Hillary's going a bit overboard. But it's hard to say whether it's for political effect or just due to maternal outrage, and the two probably aren't mutually exclusive.

If you're looking for really Republican tactics used by the Clintons (and "Republican" is an unfair description of a particular style of a particular sector of the party - I know Republicans who are very decent people - but on the other hand I don't recall mass numbers of Republicans decrying the use of those tactics, so what's good for MoveOn.org is good for the gander) you need look no further than footage of Bill Clinton campaigning in Louisiana on Hillary's behalf this past week, and telling an assembly, "Barack Obama has said things in the 1990s were no better than today. >I< think they were better than today!" (The implication being that Obama is a negativist who has no grasp of history.) Even the network news - I think it was ABC - felt obliged to follow this clip with the information that Obama never said any such thing. Having lived in Washington state for most of the '90s and relatively familiar with mindset there, I suspect Obama's sweeping primary victory there on Saturday was at least partly due to Democratic disgust over these tactics, which do seem to be becoming more desperate and obvious. And "Republican." The flat out fabrication of grounds on which to denounce their current prime opponent brings the Clintons' character into question... and does to some extent justify the sentiment behind Schuster's question, if not the language he employed.

(Though, for me, Bill's performance wasn't anywhere as unnerving of the clip I saw of Hillary telling a crowd, as a slam on Obama, "Talking about change is easy. Making change is hard," and punctuating it with a self-satisfied scrunched up expression that looked like nothing so much as a bratty little girl sticking her tongue out... without the tongue, of course.)

(And a note on the "quotes" above. I haven't looked up the exact quotes. I working from memory here, so I may be a word or two off but I know I have the sentiments expressed down pat. I doubt Hillary said "Making change is hard" because the quick response to that would be, "Are you kidding? Any high school dropout working a McDonalds counter can do it.")

- Grant

[DeadXMan]

Let me add that I don't mean Bill didn't do anything for the working class or middle class. He did some good things, such as tax breaks for people going back to school and raising the minimum wage. But he didn't go far enough.

I like the guy (foibles notwithstanding), and will greatly enjoy him as First Husband. But it won't be much of a blow against the corporatocracy.



he also brought in the Free Trade agreement that stated sending our manifacturing jobs out of the US. now data entry, and costumer sevice are leaving as well.

[Spike-X]

now data entry, and costumer sevice are leaving as well.

You mean...Captain America won't even be able to get a costume that's made in the USA any more?

Once he comes back from the dead, that is.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You mean...Captain America won't even be able to get a costume that's made in the USA any more?

Once he comes back from the dead, that is.

That would explain the new uniform having the Puerto Rican flag on it.

[bartl]

I don't quite understand what this means, but I think you're begging the question by assuming that I believe that the Clinton outrage over Schuster's comments is "manufactured" (that is to say, insincere). You don't think it's possible that Clinton's sincerely pissed that someone would use this type of misogynist language to describe her daughter? And her relationship with her daughter?
I, for one, don't think that either President or Senator Clinton felt any outrage whatsoever.

[bartl]

I doubt Hillary said "Making change is hard" because the quick response to that would be, "Are you kidding? Any high school dropout working a McDonalds counter can do it.")
You'd be surprised. A number of years back (before it was cheap and easy to make complaints via low-cost phone lines or email), I bought two 45 cent items at a McDonald's in New York. The sales tax at the time was 7%. The register rang up $1.04. When I complained (I was not being picayune; I only had a dollar bill with me at the time), the cashier said that the 14 cents was tax. I pointed out that if tax was 7 cents on the dollar, it couldn't possibly be 14 cents on 90 cents. So she called the manager, who also told me that, since the register said that 45 cents + 45 cents + 7% tax = 1.04, it must be right and not me.

These days, if it happened, McDonald's would at least spring for a free meal.

Which happened at a Burger King. The menu board said "Whopper with Cheese" , whatever. I was charged 40 cents more, and was told that was for the cheese. I pointed out the sign, and the manager told me that it did NOT say "Whopper with cheese". So I asked her to confirm it with my cell phone camera rolling, did a closeup of the menu, and got a free meal from Burger King when I complained. I would not have gone that far if the manager had not denied that a sign which clearly said, "with cheese" said "with cheese".

[bartl]

he also brought in the Free Trade agreement that stated sending our manifacturing jobs out of the US. now data entry, and costumer sevice are leaving as well.
To countries without the same privacy laws that the U.S. has, so our personal information is being sold all over the place, now. Some states have come around, and do not allow outsourcing of personal information to foreign countries.

[Steven Grant]

I would not have gone that far if the manager had not denied that a sign which clearly said, "with cheese" said "with cheese".

You eat at McDonald's and Burger King?

Jeez, all other mistakes pale before that one.

- Grant

[Bradley]

I, for one, don't think that either President or Senator Clinton felt any outrage whatsoever.

Really? Have you actually spoken to them? Because I would assume that most people would be justifiably upset if someone suggested that they were "pimping" their daughters. Do you know something about the Clintons that most of us aren't privy to, or is this just intuition/ knee-jerk Clinton hatred?

[bartl]

You eat at McDonald's and Burger King?

Jeez, all other mistakes pale before that one.
I DO read the ingredient and nutrition lists. I don't eat the fries, getting the salads instead, and I don't drown them in dressing.

[bartl]

Really? Have you actually spoken to them? Because I would assume that most people would be justifiably upset if someone suggested that they were "pimping" their daughters. Do you know something about the Clintons that most of us aren't privy to, or is this just intuition/ knee-jerk Clinton hatred?
If your response was appropriate to what I wrote, then I might have considered answering your concerns.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I DO read the ingredient and nutrition lists. I don't eat the fries, getting the salads instead, and I don't drown them in dressing.

Then why the hell go to McDonalds?

Get a real salad instead.



If your response was appropriate to what I wrote, then I might have considered answering your concerns.

I believe his response is appropriate to what you wrote.

You said you didn't believe either of the Clinton's were outraged by it, he asked if you have any proof for this, and your response leads one to believe that you don't.
(and also that it is the sort of Clinton hating knee jerk reaction he accused you of).

[Spike-X]

Going to Macca's for a salad would be like watching a porn movie for the story.

And yeah, what Ben said re: the Clinton stuff. Seemed like a fair question to me.

[Brother Zag]

The manufactured Outrage campaign has been used so effectively by the Republicans for the very reasons seen in this thread: How do you "prove" how outraged someone is?

I can tell you I don't believe the Clintons were truly outraged, and tell you why, but it's not "proof."

The Clintons know who David Schuster is, at least by reputation, and that reputation has been a very good one. He covered the Valerie Plame story like a real pit bull. He's known as a reporter's reporter. He's not a slime merchant who routinely mischaracterizes people and their offspring.

The Clintons know that "pimped out" is out in the vernacular now, and covers a wider range of meaning than its former, narrower definition as it relates to prostitution.

So... the Clinton's know that Schuster wasn't artful or tactful or even smart in his use of "Pimped Out" to describe Chelsea's work for the campaign. But they also know Schuster was not trying to label Chelsea a WHORE.

Younger voters know this. By now, I think we've seen the tactic didn't work to generate sympathy among the elctorate as a whole. The resonance we've seen has been with older women voters - those who may not appreciate the way "pimped out" has become part of the vernacular of the young.

We know the Clintons run a very smart and deliberate campaign. They don't do ANYTHING without calculating the risk/benefit factors. There is no way they tried to gin up this outrage without planning their response carefully, with a calculated effect in mind.

I submit that the actual level of their offense was quite low.

Pure conjecture? Sure. But prove to me they really were outraged. You can't do that either.

[bartl]

Then why the hell go to McDonalds?

Get a real salad instead.
Discount coupons.


I believe his response is appropriate to what you wrote.

You said you didn't believe either of the Clinton's were outraged by it, he asked if you have any proof for this, and your response leads one to believe that you don't.
(and also that it is the sort of Clinton hating knee jerk reaction he accused you of).
Nope. I stated what was very clearly an opinion. If I had proof, then it would have been a statement of fact. So, he was twisting what I said from a statement of opinion to a statement of fact. Now, if he asked why I had the opinion, or if I had any EVIDENCE backing my opinion, I would have answered.

It's becoming far too common a practice to subtly alter the words of what someone says to greatly alter the meaning. Those who are against embryonic stem cell research but support adult stem cell research are labeled as being against ALL stem cell research. Those who favor making legal immigration easier but are against letting those who broke the rules get in line ahead of those who followed them are labeled "anti-immigration". I'm waiting for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to be labeled "anti-driving". And I'm not going to bend over and take it, either. If someone wants me to respond to what I said, let them ask me about what I said, not about what they wish I had said.

[Bradley]

If your response was appropriate to what I wrote, then I might have considered answering your concerns.

I apologize if the way I phrased the question offended you, but do you actually have a reason to believe that

a) outrage over an accusation of "pimping out" one's own daughter is unwarranted

or

b) that the Clintons do not feel outrage the way other people might (if, in fact, you do believe that a parent would find such a statement offensive?)

Obviously, I feel that if someone accused me of exploiting my own child (or, especially if the child is a daughter, "pimping out" my child), I'd be pissed. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I don't have kids, so it's all theoretical for me. Still, I tend to imagine that your response has more to do with the Clintons in this case, and less to do with a belief that the phrase "pimping out" is harmless in this context. But since your original statement was so vague, I have no way of knowing for sure.

[bartl]

I can tell you I don't believe the Clintons were truly outraged, and tell you why, but it's not "proof."
Once again, if you could prove an opinion, then it wouldn't be an opinon; it would be a fact.

You presented some evidence of your opinion, which is kinder than I would have been. However, I would indicate the past history of the Clintons showing false outrage; "I did not have sex with that woman!" by the finger-wagging Bill Clinton, using their pet cat to win votes, then toss him off to a secretary when they were tired of him, "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.", just to indicate a few.

[Bradley]

Nope. I stated what was very clearly an opinion. If I had proof, then it would have been a statement of fact. So, he was twisting what I said from a statement of opinion to a statement of fact. Now, if he asked why I had the opinion, or if I had any EVIDENCE backing my opinion, I would have answered.

Could you delineate the difference between "evidence" and "proof" for me? Most of us regard those words as synonyms. And I'm not sure why my asking for one results in a semantic argument, whereas if I'd asked for the other, I would presumably be on safe ground.

Nevertheless, I think you'll agree that we tend to arrive at our opinions through an analysis of facts. An opinion of any value is an opinion based upon an analysis of evidence; in other words, we're often asked to "prove" the validity of our claims. Offering up evidence or proof does not necessarily transform an opinion into a statement of fact; frequently, it just results in a stronger, more convincing argument.

Finally, what you offered up is not, strictly speaking, an opinion. At least not until you offer some evidence. As it is, it's a statement of belief. Belief doesn't require evidence; opinions do.


If someone wants me to respond to what I said, let them ask me about what I said, not about what they wish I had said.

Fine. Will you please elaborate on what you said?

[Bradley]

The Clintons know that "pimped out" is out in the vernacular now, and covers a wider range of meaning than its former, narrower definition as it relates to prostitution.

I'd find this more persuasive had the phrase been used to describe Mitt Romney's sons campaigning for him. Or Bill Clinton rallying support for his wife. Or if, just once, I could hear somebody say, "Wow, Mike Huckabee sure is pimping out Chuck Norris!"

[Steven Grant]

Wow, Mike Huckabee sure is pimping out Chuck Norris.

- Grant

[Bradley]

See? Now I'm convinced.

[Paul McEnery]

I apologize if the way I phrased the question offended you, but do you actually have a reason to believe that

a) outrage over an accusation of "pimping out" one's own daughter is unwarranted

or

b) that the Clintons do not feel outrage the way other people might (if, in fact, you do believe that a parent would find such a statement offensive?)

Obviously, I feel that if someone accused me of exploiting my own child (or, especially if the child is a daughter, "pimping out" my child), I'd be pissed. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I don't have kids, so it's all theoretical for me. Still, I tend to imagine that your response has more to do with the Clintons in this case, and less to do with a belief that the phrase "pimping out" is harmless in this context. But since your original statement was so vague, I have no way of knowing for sure.

Bearing in mind how much Hillary has been pimping out her husband, the outrage is all about covering for the fact that the campaign is covering for the candidate.

[mattx110]

I'd find this more persuasive had the phrase been used to describe Mitt Romney's sons campaigning for him. Or Bill Clinton rallying support for his wife. Or if, just once, I could hear somebody say, "Wow, Mike Huckabee sure is pimping out Chuck Norris!"
It's different when you work out of Harlem.

[bartl]

Could you delineate the difference between "evidence" and "proof" for me? Most of us regard those words as synonyms.
Which helps explain the current state of the world.

Evidence establishes probability. Proof establishes certainty.

[Bradley]

Which helps explain the current state of the world.

Evidence establishes probability. Proof establishes certainty.

Well, actually proof only suggests certainty. Which is still beside the point, as neither word appeared in my initial request for clarification.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I, for one, think Bart is just a staunch right-winger, who really doesn't have too much of a grip on reality, apart from what right-wing radio and fox news tell him, and as such, doesn't believe the current government has any faults, believes the Clinton administration didn't do any good, and will happily believe that anything the Clinton's say or do is fake or bad, regardless of what's being said, or if there is any proof of wrong doing.

[Steven Grant]

Bart isn't a staunch right winger. Bart is more one of those fuzzy at the edges-position on the political pole shifts depending on the issue kind of guys (fuzzy at the edges is not meant as a criticism, only a description of how futile it is to try to pin him down to outside definitions) whose main characteristic is probably deep suspicion of glib surface presentations.

By the way, for whoever it was because I'm too lazy to start another message: proof means proof. It means something is proven. It is the essence of certainty. And Bart is right: evidence isn't proof. It's only that a substantial body of evidence that logically interrelates can be reasonably accepted as proof of something, until contradictory evidence arises.

- Grant

[Bradley]

By the way, for whoever it was because I'm too lazy to start another message: proof means proof. It means something is proven. It is the essence of certainty. And Bart is right: evidence isn't proof. It's only that a substantial body of evidence that logically interrelates can be reasonably accepted as proof of something, until contradictory evidence arises.

- Grant

No, proof merely leads to something being proven-- providing "proof" doesn't mean that an issue is settled. If dictionary.com can be believed, judging by the first entry for the word "evidence," the two words are synonyms.

To be clear, though-- I've always found Bart to be reasonable and intellectually honest. I find myself in disagreement with him today, but that shouldn't be read as an indictment of his personality or intentions on my part. And if I've been rude in my exchanges with him-- and I'm afraid, upon reflection, that my first response to him was snide and out-of-line-- then I apologize to him and to everyone else reading this exchange.

EDIT: And I really mean that last sentence-- I don't know what I was thinking, Bart, but ascribing ill-will to you in that first response of mine was completely inappropriate. I don't know where my head was, but you didn't deserve such presumption.

[Paul McEnery]

Bart isn't a staunch right winger. Bart is more one of those fuzzy at the edges-position on the political pole shifts depending on the issue kind of guys (fuzzy at the edges is not meant as a criticism, only a description of how futile it is to try to pin him down to outside definitions) whose main characteristic is probably deep suspicion of glib surface presentations.

By the way, for whoever it was because I'm too lazy to start another message: proof means proof. It means something is proven. It is the essence of certainty. And Bart is right: evidence isn't proof. It's only that a substantial body of evidence that logically interrelates can be reasonably accepted as proof of something, until contradictory evidence arises.

- Grant

Hee.

I think Funky's point may have missed you, there.

[Paul McEnery]

No, proof merely leads to something being proven-- providing "proof" doesn't mean that an issue is settled. If dictionary.com can be believed, judging by the first entry for the word "evidence," the two words are synonyms..

Not so much.

Evidence is an empirical datum.

Proof is a test, which implies inference (or is that infers implication?).

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, and here's Hillary complaining about MSNBC:


Clinton herself accused the network of persistent bias. "I'm a mom first. I'm a candidate second. And, you know, I really am troubled by this pattern of behaviour and comments that you hear," she told an ABC affiliate on Monday.

Which is, wait for it, pimping out her daughter, isn't it.

[DavidAllred]

My problem with this race is that I don't know WHAT Obama stands for. I don't want a politician to bring me hope. Hope I already have. I want a politician to bring me RESULTS. And I don't know that Obama can or will do that.

I spent some time on Obama's webiste this morning... I lean right in my politics, but tend to like what I hear, so I went to see where the rubber really met the road as far as what Obama would do as President. The website is laid out nicely and easy to follow. Under the "issues" column he give a small window into what he wants to do for America, many of the pages also contain video feeds so you can hear him say it in his own words.

What impressed me the most were his commitments to people with disabilities, his lecture of faith and public life, and his commitment to civil rights.

As far as results go, I wouldn't expect much from Washington in your lifetime. It's just not in them to do much other than perpetuate their own careers. Better to start with your local government and push them toward a high level of accountability.

Mt 2 cents,

--S

[bartl]

EDIT: And I really mean that last sentence-- I don't know what I was thinking, Bart, but ascribing ill-will to you in that first response of mine was completely inappropriate. I don't know where my head was, but you didn't deserve such presumption.
Thank you very much, but not necessary. If I didn't respect the people here, I wouldn't waste my time with you.

A few non-right wing views I have:

I support right to abortion, but I oppose Roe vs. Wade; I think that a strong Cosnstitutional argument could have been made without the Supreme Court declaring that it can unilaterally amend it.

Similarly, I support gays being allowed to marry, but I want to see it by legislation rather than court rulings (as legislation is specific, and court rulings set precedents that can go out of control).

I believe that the 1st Amendment would be rendered nonsense if a basic right of freedom of thought was not an assumption. I therefore believe both recreational drug laws and hate crime laws to be unconstitutional.

The only way I would support school vouchers is if there was a level playing field; schools accepting vouchers must be required to accept any student the public schools are to accept. Which pretty much means it won't happen.

I voted for Bill Clinton. Both times.

I think that Rush Limbaugh is a selfish bastard.

I own one book by Mike Savage: Weiner's Herbal.

Finally, after corresponding with him for almost 2 decades, I have found that when Grant disagrees with me, it's a good idea to re-evaluate my position (not necessarily change my position).

(Edit: adding one more thing) This one is so second nature to me that I almost forgot it; it is my firm belief, so far confirmed by the Human Genome Project, that any significant difference between the so-called "races" is environmental rather than hereditary.

[Lord Destiny]

I spent some time on Obama's webiste this morning... I lean right in my politics, but tend to like what I hear, so I went to see where the rubber really met the road as far as what Obama would do as President. The website is laid out nicely and easy to follow. Under the "issues" column he give a small window into what he wants to do for America, many of the pages also contain video feeds so you can hear him say it in his own words.



Yeah, Obama sure talks a good game. But I go by votes, not speeches. And for some reason he chose, way too often for my taste, to merely say "present" when he had a chance to vote yay or nay on policy issues.

Hillary's talking a good game too. But when she had a chance to vote against giving telecoms immunity (which to me sounds like an unconstitutional ex post facto law), she opted to campaign instead. That decision spoke volumes for me.