 |
|
| |
|
|
|  Looking Beyond the HaircutPosted on Dec 16, 2007
“Somewhere in America tonight,” he said, “a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. Somewhere in America today a father who has worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job.” [To see the December debate, in multiple parts, go to YouTube.com and search on “Iowa Democratic debate.”] His talk of hunger, poor medical care and working people’s fear of sudden middle-age unemployment provided a bracing touch of reality in a campaign where the media are stubbornly occupied with matters irrelevant to American life: Is Hillary too blind to accept the journalistic verdict that her campaign is falling apart? Did Obama pine for the presidency in kindergarten ? What about that dope smoking as a teenager? How about these Mormons and Mitt Romney? Did Joseph Smith really receive God’s word in upper New York state, just as Moses did on Mount Sinai? The real question is why so few reporters were paying attention to what Edwards had to say about the economy, health care and job insecurity in a nation where economic conditions have become a prime concern. I focused on what Edwards had to say as I prepared to take off for Iowa to cover the campaign. I talked to people who had been observing the campaign coverage to see if they shared my outrage at a media seemingly intent on trivializing the election. Thomas B. Edsall, a professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism who has shifted to the online world as political editor of The Huffington Post after a long and distinguished career at The Washington Post, told me, “Newspapers have lost the capacity to voice outrage and in its place have adopted weaker tools.” But outrage appears to be the wrong tone for the Iowa caucuses, whose main function is to serve as sort of a quarter pole in the presidential campaign horse race and which are held in a state untypical of the highly populated urban and suburban centers where most Americans live. That impression was reinforced the day before the Democratic debate when moderator Carolyn Washburn opened the Republican debate by announcing: “We’re going to focus on issues Iowans say they want to know more about. We won’t talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They are important issues no doubt but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those.” My first reaction as I watched her on television was to marvel at Washburn’s sense of entitlement. What qualifies her and her colleagues to place Iraq and immigration practically off limits when the candidates have yet to plumb the depths of these two extremely complex subjects? My reaction was reinforced the next morning when The New York Times’ Monica Davey reported from the small town of Storm Lake, Iowa, where immigrants have found jobs at Tyson Meat Packing and other places. She wrote that almost all of the people she interviewed “said they considered immigration policy at or near the top of their lists of concerns. ...” Such immigration from Mexico and Central and South America is driven by homeland poverty and lack of opportunity. These are conditions related to the impact of the new and heartless global economy on jobs in places as far apart as Asia, Mexico and Iowa. As Edwards put it earlier this month: “Trade deals can create jobs, but they can also cost us jobs. They can bring down prices, but they can also hold down wages. The question I will ask about each trade deal is simple: All things considered, does it make most regular families better off or not?” He was speaking about job losses such as the ones Washburn’s own paper, the Des Moines Register, reported on in October when reporter William Ryberg covered the closing of the Maytag appliance plant by the new owner, global power Whirlpool: “Iowa history was written in tears, hugs and goodbyes Thursday as the Maytag washer and dryer factory ended production in Newton. The town of 15,000 was home to the Maytag brand for 114 years.” I don’t see these tears, hugs and goodbyes in much of the campaign coverage. In New York recently, I took the subway out to Columbia to interview Megan Garber, part of the Columbia Journalism Review’s useful daily online review of campaign coverage, Campaign Desk. Garber, 27, grew up in Monterey, Calif., graduated from Princeton and taught English for a year in Vietnam before going to the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. This year she has a fellowship writing for the journalism school’s magazine and Web site. Garber said that reporting about Edwards “also requires reporting about these multidimensional problems” associated with poverty. “Poverty,” she said, is a very difficult thing to report.” Based on her reading of campaign coverage, Garber sees a strain of cynicism in the way the press corps views Edwards. “The consensus was that he was too rich to be advocating for the poor, a pretty boy. All that attention to his haircut.” But a cynical press doesn’t dwell on how he got rich. His wealth was earned in courtrooms as a plaintiff’s attorney, fighting for those abused by corporations, insurers, physicians and others. I wondered what would have happened to Robert F. Kennedy in the hands of today’s reporters. He was rich. He was handsome. His father made the family fortune in a rough and tough way. Bob Kennedy would have been made to look conniving by the irony of 21st-century political journalism. Instead, the journalists covering Kennedy in 1968 accepted him for what he was—a man shaped by tragedy who had a remarkable empathy with the nation’s downtrodden. Despite his good haircut, he probably would have been elected president if it hadn’t been for an assassin. If Edwards loses the nomination, I hope it is because he failed to sell his ideas rather than because of damage inflicted by stories about his wealth and haircut.
Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Douglas Chalmers, January 3, 2008 at 8:10 am #
By Shenonymous, January 3: “How dare you say I lack pathos… My care of the human race is well documented on these threads and you grab at straws…. stick you bellicose conceit…”
Ooh, I must have stolen yer thunder, Shhh. But the horror originates in the death of the American fantasy. It stinks to high heaven and it will take more than a suit with a neat haircut to keep the carcass moving. And you died too, anyway, Shhh - that’s why yo’re a tru vampira, ha ha.
Come midnight, you will need more than a documentary facade to support your theories as to being a living human and not some blood-sucking chupacabra, though. Your care, uhh, of the human race is known - as it really is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOrnShOifeI&feature =related
America, Viet Nam and the Poetics of Guilt:-
The “war poem” has, since Homer, served as a means for non-combatants to access the experience of warfare; evolving over time, the genre eflects and revises cultural attitudes toward war. Since the Great War, the war poem has become a tool of political protest, a declamation of war’s destructiveness and a plea for understanding on behalf of the soldiers forced or duped into fighting it.
As a “literature of trauma,” this poetry is often
seen as therapeutic exercise through which veterans can transcend the “nightmare” of war through cathartic expression. The American poetry written on Viet Nam challenges this interpretive model.
Previous war poetry casts the soldier as war’s ultimate victim. From Sassoon’s Christlike trench soldiers to Jarrell’s eviscerated ball-turret gunner, it is what happens to the soldier, not what the soldier does that is the primary poetic focus.
The violence the soldier does is a marginal concern in these poems, subordinated to a larger metaphysics of war’s suffering.
In Viet Nam war poetry, however, this sublimation seems impossible: the poems are overwhelmingly concerned not with the overall victimizing experience of “war,” but rather with the soldier’s acute sense of personal moral transgression….
Report thisBy Shenonymous, January 3, 2008 at 6:58 am #
How dare you say I lack pathos, Douglas, when you are the least insightful of the posters on TD who artfully dodges thorough answers and resorts to unending feeble and almost juvenile anticlimaxical videos. My care of the human race is well documented on these threads and you grab at straws since you have nothing else on which to stick you bellicose conceit.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, January 3, 2008 at 6:30 am #
Well wasn’t Kurtz mad? Or was he?
By Shenonymous, January 3: “Well wasn’t Kurtz mad? Or Was he a great man with profound philosophical insight…. Didn’t Chef deserve to have a life…. What gave Kurtz the right to behead him? Does the brutality of war always make all men more bloodthirsty and mad? If not, then Kurtz is wrong.
Well, Apocalypse Now was based on Heart of Darkness but more contemporary. As the Vietnamization of Iraq proceeded, it is still pertinent. But, of course, what is more un-contemporary than “settler society” as it continues to manifest and to justify its brutality against countries, individuals and the environment?
That all men must die is one thing. All women must die too. But so too do some children - and many did die in Vietnam, and many more in Iraq. Thus napalming straw-thatched bamboo huts in rural villages is perhaps not a better way for children to die - and nor is starvation an disease in Iraq as a result of embargos and sanctions and a decade-long naval blockade.
Lacking feeling for others (pathos), the American Way, IS your “dramaturgy”, Shenonymous. And that IS the mark of empires and of “settler societies” in particular. Thus, I chose that clip to underline the grossness of the ugly American choosing, even at the last, to become some kind of warlord and to go on with conquest and murder - all in the name of what is now referred to as “the defence of the Homeland”.
Report thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chYQIj39U0E&feature =related
By Shenonymous, January 3, 2008 at 4:47 am #
Well wasnt Kurtz mad? Or was he? Was he a great man with profound philosophical insight? Which philosophy might that have been an allusion to? Or should I say whose? Didnt Chef deserve to have a life? What gave Kurtz the right to behead him? Does the brutality of war always make all men more bloodthirsty and mad? If not, then Kurtz is wrong. If so, then all men must die. All men will die one way or another, are there any better ways than others? Try Conrads Heart of Darkness for less dramaturgy and more pathos, which is where the horror the horror originates. Kurtz dies anyway. What does it mean for his philosophy that he dies?
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, January 3, 2008 at 4:23 am #
Looking way beyond the haircut…. i leave the continuum for…. i’ve nebulously connected this comment to the thread
By i,Q, January 2 : “Thinking for one’s self is the key to mental freedom, yet as a society we are constantly falling back on examples of what they (or others) have said or written, as a justification for our own belief systems…”
Oh, yes…... see if you can sort the Truth from Brando’s bullshit of the insane American dream come to its end, yet to crumble http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGosYIlXdmU&feature =related
COLONEL KURTZ (on tape)... “I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That’s my dream. That’s my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight razor, and surviving.”
Report thisBy i,Q, January 2, 2008 at 4:33 pm #
i leave the continuum for a few days and look what happens, a flame up overof all thingsenlightenment.
i’m not sure all of the focus on “experiencing the now” is as relevant to my enjoyment of life as the part where one severs one’s self from the emotional distress which results from a fundamental lack of control in such a complex universe, a lesson which i’m sure a few of usmyself includedcould apply to our relationship to the current state of socio-economic/political affairs. (There, i’ve nebulously connected this comment to the thread.)
i find it interesting that so many great religious and philosophical thinkers, the originators of much of contemporary thought if you will: Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, even the Sufi mystics, all seem to indicate that honest self-examination reveals that truth is an internal acceptance of the world without and our relationship to it. Thinking for one’s self is the key to mental freedom, yet as a society we are constantly falling back on examples of what they (or others) have said or written, as a justification for our own belief systems.
Certainly, as Shenonymous alluded to, we are linked strongly to our histories and use those experiences to formulate the choices we make as we traverse the knife’s edge of the now hoping to shape a future which will compare favorably to our personal comforts. And if, as Douglas seems to promote, we are able to become more flexible in the “now” and to avoid negative reactions to stimuli which constantly bombard our senses, we will have a greater likelihood of succeeding in having shaped a future which is comfortable to our ever-presenting experience of existence. The journey is fundamentally personal, and how we balance both our expectations and our experience against the desires shaped by our past becomes the challenge of a fully realized life.
A quick note for She:
The references to Star Trek’s Q and also James Bond’s Q are secondary, but well liked, by myself. The nick name of Q was derived from an early handle (all the way back to CompuServe days) of Quanta, which i’m sure you know is the singular for a discreet measurement of energy. Having a quite common given name, and finding myself in working situations where being identified uniquely was a plus, i adopted the moniker of “Q” to avoid confusion. Unfortunately in the virtual world, Q is quite a common screen name, or fails to meet a minimum of 3 characters.
If you are still having trouble with italics here is a great tutorial to start learning html tags and concepts.
This blog supports most of the tags in the “Text Formatting” list about halfway down the page.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 26, 2007 at 8:26 am #
You have to know Douglas that I live in the mindless state of Texas and we can’t find our way out of a paper bag, besides it’s warm and cozy in there, quiet and time to meditate at will.
Have a cup of Leefeller coffee…
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 26, 2007 at 7:42 am #
#122561 by Shenonymous on 12/26: “Your link to the chungtian webpage is tellingly brief….. But too many bastardize the idea just to be cute….”
Yes, I agree that Westerners especially “bastardize” Buddhism. That’s why it is utterly dependent on Tibetans, Thais and Tawanese. What puny thinking, though, Shenonymous. That’s why I selected that link, uhh….
Chung Tian is a temple in Australia in Queensland state. It is as near to Texas as you could get in another land. They even have a town called Texas (pop. 900) http://www.flexi.net.au/~ingleweb/texas.htm
Chung Tian is part of the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Order and its headquarters are Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Taiwan is the world’s leading leading supporter of Buddhist missions….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dupbuPvYke4&feature =related and check related clips…. http://english.kscg.gov.tw/CmsShow.aspx?ID=338&Lin kType=3&C_ID=638
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 26, 2007 at 6:29 am #
What puny thinking Douglas. Your link to the chungtian webpage is tellingly brief and obviously meager. I need no help before during or after Christmas as it is not a holiday for me. It is only a holiday for the deluded. And it wasnt the dog that Joshu, made the mistake about, it was himself! What is your Buddha nature? To put stupid videos on the Internet and cast aspersions to women? Are you too a misogynist like the Buddha? And by the way, in Buddhism, all things have a Buddha nature, even women. Buddhism went beyond Gautama. It now resides as only an idea. But too many bastardize the idea just to be cute.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 26, 2007 at 2:13 am #
#122503 by Shenonymous on 12/25: “... I guess the gerl stuff is for the inane prick guys who can’t get enough…asinine videos. Do you need some help?
It looks like you need some help with the day after Christmas, Shenonymous, if not Christmas day itself.
Having missed the point entirely, consider that “dogs are people too”, uhh (Joshu’s Mu).
Zen is as Ch’an does. Then there is the attitude of asinine chics…. Suave - Suavemente!
Ask Tipitaka how to give up the stuff if you are having trouble http://www.chungtian.org.au/ctt_chan.htm
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm #
It is applaudable that you did your duty to Truthdig and John Edwards, somewhat like Arjuna? But the comment was so obtuse that it was incoherent. I guess the gerl stuff is for the inane prick guys who cant get enough giggly sex and bare breasts. Poor things. I suggest some sexual gratification through self-stimulation therapy might help, as it would be a bit more real than asinine videos. Do you need some help?
The comment about the Turks was a metaphor for all those who would trot out insane religious based fascism.
But I defy you to catch one of your moments by moments.
It is not compulsion that ties us to the past; it is a fact of existence. We can only ever imagine the future and actually live through the now that we can never grasp.
Yes, I am well familiar with the Hindu detachment. My western mind accepted it a long time ago. It is facile and slick to talk about the NOW as you do. It is a superficial way of hit and run kind of approach. For instance, exactly how exceedingly hard is it to fully realize the timeless state of now? It is so easy to let slide through the lips to say. But do try to say why you think so. Maybe it is easier than you think, as thinking can be deceptive. Look up Joshus Mu in the Zen tradition.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 25, 2007 at 10:11 am #
#122305 by Shenonymous on 12/24: “Poor woman Stoker, too bad she wasn’t “liberated,” but maybe she was in a perverse death-release kind of way? So maybe the Turks get everyone in the end??? Now that’s food for a sci-fi novel….. We always live in the past and can only imagine the future. The now is a figment and never really exists….”
Uhh, “the blurb on Edwards” was because this was/is nominally an Edwards topic, if I got that right. I’m only doin’ ma dooty to Truthdig, Shenonymous.
The self-sacrificing woman was not Stoker’s wife but the original Vlad Dracul’s. There’s a pic of the old castle she threw herself from in one of those links too - but try a more contemporary Macedonian close relative, if you wish - its all gerl stuff, though, ha ha.
Its not the Turks we have to fear nowadays but the Catholic Neocon pope and he has already tried to fit us with an agenda to re-prejudice Europe against secular Turkey and any Islamic countries. He failed but he has recently trotted out another agenda against Russia - another imagined despot despised and feared by Western Europeans.
But which “state of mind” was I referring to? As regards “the NOW”, however, we are experiencing that moment by moment - but only superficially. That is because, as you say, we are so compulsively tied to the past or the supposedly desired (or feared) future.
That is why the Hindu religion advocated “detachment from the fruits of one’s actions”. That is very hard for the Western mind to accept. Actually, NOW is a timeless state in which all truth is present. Again, it is exceedingly hard to fully realize. That IS enlightenment, after all, as one is in contact with the Force Itself!
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 3:42 pm #
At least she went into a hospital to see what those nurses have to deal with. One sampling, however, does not give a completely honest account of what Hillary really thinks. Since this was videoed by her own crew, interacted mainly with one nurse and her family, it still seemed deliberate, calculated and somewhat contrived. I dont completely mind that since there arent many really genuine experiences of that nature that comes up on any regular basis. I would rather have seen her visit a couple or even three hospitals. But this didnt have Boyarsky in it at all, so like John Travolta, Im confused. Maybe you posted it in a different place? Not sure what you are talking about with the blurb on Edwards, either.
And I dontmind your videos at all, if you have read my comments you would see that I have an appreciation for them.
We cant help but live in the past Douglas. It is beyond effectively. If you can even notice a moment, which I highly doubt, it is already in the past by the time your brain cognizes it, and you are only left with a memory of it. We always live in the past and can only imagine the future. The now is a figment and never really exists. It is one of those hypothetical constructs, like time and space. Too deep for an end of the year holiday? What exactly is the state of mind you are referring to? It is somewhat nebulous the way you put it.
Poor woman Stoker, too bad she wasnt liberated, but maybe she was in a perverse death-release kind of way? So maybe the Turks get everyone in the end??? Now thats food for a sci-fi novel. Its getting to be time for that glass of wine.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 11:09 am #
#122254 by Shenonymous on 12/24: “...dungeons and dragons chic…. I like the asian rugs in the castle. Stoker never actually even visited Bran Castle….”
No, Shenonymous, “looking beyond the (1400’s) haircut”, he ran off and left his wife to throw herself off the wall of their real castle (further up the creek somewhere) rather than be captured by the friendly Turks. But apparently, they got him in the end too.
The movie was different, though (made in Romania). The rooms reminded me of some colonial American home for some reason - maybe because we are all effectively living in the past. Domestic architecture tends to be rather backward even if people drive the sleekest things. Its a state of mind…....
Edwards’ words…. sounded so out of tune with this year’s campaign discourse…. that the man might as well have been campaigning on another planet.... His talk of hunger, poor medical care and working people’s fear might have “provided a bracing touch of reality” but Hillary has already been on that trail despite the media’s pre-occupation with attacking her.
Dare I post another video clip again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSxgUQ3VNg4 - although this article is partly about Bill Boyarsky talking to people “who had been observing the campaign coverage to see if they shared my outrage at a media seemingly intent on trivializing the election”.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 9:27 am #
Doug: So dungeons and dragons chic! The gothy music reminds me of the Carmina Burana by Carl Orff, only not half as good really. Schmaltzy, and calculated to excite the pubescent pimply-faced 15 year-old boys with a sword in hand,... or something else. I like the asian rugs in the castle. Stoker never actually even visited Bran Castle. See how we make up stuff?
Uh, does any one know what rock that Dumb Vita slithered out from under?
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 9:13 am #
Youse no what Don Vito, why don’t you go suck on a lollipop of arsenic. Get outta m’face you moron.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 9:11 am #
ell Im tired of sucked out journalists. I dont understand why the intelligent folks even bother to read or listen to them. I am so tired of the newspeople that I havent heard or seen a journalist is weeks. They are sophomoric at best and most tedious. Daniel Shorr is the only one I can relate to and he is 92! Democracy Now with Amy Goodman is an exception too. Seems like journalists these days are quite artless and ingenuous. I can hardly stand to listen to any of them. Most unsophisticated in their posturing and pretensions. Their low-tech brains try to achieve high-tech intelligence and they just dont make the grade. So much for journalists. I dont want to spend my time in an Aldo Nadi or Passate-sotto on blog sites. Id rather engage in a riposte action. But on the blogs it is tiltiing at windmills. Don Quixotes fate is not really that interesting in this context. Im getting jaded with the drone of the TD and CD forums and find my eyes are glazing over more and more. Might be time to find other diversions.
I hope Hillary does well, but as Ive mentioned I have settled on John Edwards for a number of reasons, even though he isnt perfect. I dont like his position on illegal aliens (as in aliens from Mars or elsewhere), I completely agree with Joe Biden but he hasnt a rats ass chance in a Calcutta jail. Sigh. I figure congress will take care of the illegal alien problem eventually. Come January Im going on down to Ft. Worth and find a way to work for Edwards. I think he is solid presidential material. The drug thing is another case of pure stupidity created by punch-drunk blasé journalists. The mundane is so tiring, doesnt any body else feel it?
I live deep in the heart of Texass. We dont get earthquakes but as I said we get class 5 tornados, but my 100+ year old house is still standing! I have a bomb/tornado shelter out back.
Ill check out that YouTube link and get back to you. Ive noticed since the Hitchens caucus you have a cool sense of humor.
Report thisBy Don Vito, December 24, 2007 at 8:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a goddamn joke Edwards is, and this whole suckfest. He is a FRAUD… but I’m glad they posted this article so I can easily discern the other FRAUDS like shitonymous and Dougie.
Dougie, are you even an American citizen? Do you even have standing to comment on this? Don’t you have aborigines to go take care of?
I could care less that Edwards’ policies are liberal and socialist in leaning. I have respect for Nader & Kucinich, who are real people with real histories. But what I do care about are millionaire FRAUDS who live lives of total HYPOCRISY. He LIES… just like Bush has LIED. Just like Hillary LIES.
shitonymous, its so appropriate that you hate RP. You don’t have the intellect or objectivity to at least appreciate his genuineness, compared to the FRAUD that is Edwards. So go ahead and complete your circle-jerk and vote for Johnnie boy.
Hate RP all you want. His movement is not going away, while we’ll be waving bye-bye to Johnnie boy around Feb or March 2008 at the latest.
And for the moron who thinks Barak is the most conservative of the dem candidates??!! Do you even know anything about this race, the candidates or their policies?
The prime value of the turddig posts is to allow the morons of the world to unite so I can easily see who should be shot first for food when the anarchy comes.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 8:23 am #
#122227 by Shenonymous on 12/24: “His hell will welcome him with open arms….”
Duh, see #122206 by Douglas Chalmers on 12/24 re the evil Prince Vlad, Shenonymous - its a link to a YouTube page.
That “giant orb of iron and nickel” really is essential to the Earth’s center - as well as ‘producing’ the magnetosphere, it keeps the planet ‘on course’. That is something more than any amount of politicians have been able to do for most coutries, uhh.
Frankly, back on topic, I don’t see why Hillary should “accept the journalistic verdict that her campaign is falling apart” merely because it is some journalists’ weary opinion. Whether Obama “pined for the presidency in kindergarten” matters less than whether he is still doing something other than “dope smoking as a teenager”.
Just calling a drug “legal” dosen’t mean that it is not being used, even if it is only ‘legally’ available to the medical profession - “Obama….. hasn’t consumed any illegal drugs in 20 years…” Strange, too, that Truthdig had to turn to quoting a media website in Melbourne, Australia to get at Hillary , though.
Do try http://www.noaa.gov/ for tsunamis if a you are on or near a beach on the Pacific coast (can also get a relayed message to your cell phone) or the http://www.usgs.gov/ site elsewhere and for earthquakes, etc. Click on the “RSS” symbol and you will receive…...
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 7:53 am #
Doug, there was no video, but a rather boring story about Huckabee who is really a Hasbeenabee and his new sick herd. His hell will welcome him with open arms. I see a lot of the same crowd and saying pretty much the same kinds of things. Ho Hum. Rather see a good video. Ill take another look at the Idiot Evangelical Rebellion and give it a couple more seconds of thought, but these cretinous baby-bottle sucking religious nuts all ought to be, well, Im not a violent person, so somebody else can fill in the blanks and Id rather spend my time listening to Mahler.
Thanks for the posting tips. You seem like a good person.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 6:40 am #
#122207 by Shenonymous on 12/24: “It’s an evening thang. Salute again….”
Shenonymous, I posted another video at http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071223_the_evang elical_rebellion/ - cheers, ha ha! Oh, and congratulations on your “lightening rod’, too…...
Did I take a wrong turn somewhere….. Just go back and follow the instructions to italicize…. [color=darkred text /color] ....choose yer color and close brackets.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 6:21 am #
Well, I don’t drink this early! Maybe gave the wrong impression. It’s an evening thang. Salute again.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 24, 2007 at 5:26 am #
Good morning Doug, I could swear I was asking Q if he was related to Q? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Do you mind Douglas, explaining the interest in geophysical events? I dont really need to keep up with it or meteorology as I get enough here where I am, the Texass prairie has extremes of weather, 9 degrees one minute 110 the next! Tornados and other wind storms. I have a lightening rod in my front yard. Of course, that is all above ground, just as I am. I used to know a geophysicist very well, and I know about plate tectonics and so forth, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this forum. But its interesting that you have some bluster about it. Unless you are trying to be cute too? You know Im one of the biggest flirts on the net and that my middle name is Hyperbole. Did you know that the giant orb of iron and nickel that is essential to the Earths center is spinning faster than the planets surface? What do you think might happen from that?
And besides I love The Next Generation and Patrick Stewart. It was the bestest. And furthermore, how did I,Q (now known as Q) at #121992 get to bold your name and make bold red Ab-Lounge???? And I love to Italicize. I need more intuition about RSS, what? Feeds?
Keep having a Happy Solstice. I am, with some Cabernet Sauvignon salute
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 3:41 am #
#122027 by Shenonymous on 12/23: “...how do you make bold or italics on your comments? I use MS Word and my stuff always come up with no inflections…... the Q on The Next Generation Star Trek….. I have signed up for google alerts…”
You might sign up for RSS feeds on earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis, too, Shenonymous. Its surprising jus how much “activity” there really is on and under the surface of our planet.
How could you possibly compare me to anything from StarTrek, though? Its no use doing your WP and transposing it - it doesn’t work on blogs. Add [b text /b] or [i text /i] manually and close the brackets around each to get your desired result.
P.S. Happy Solstice!!!
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 23, 2007 at 7:18 am #
Q: Well the mindless state of Texass will make up for your no-name, inconsequential state. Id offer for you to migrate to Texass but you are probably too good for it, though Id love the company. Id say to bolster up and put out your blue signs, but Im afraid the AK47 crowd could do you in, so faggetdaboutit. We want to keep you. Unless you have a Sicilian in your family.
Chalmers always comes in with hysterical videos, I just love em. The History of Q is precious. I wish I understood Japanese, but I get the drift. Performance art is one of the most politically charged ways to get public attention. Though Im not sure what our Japanese artist was saying. His abs arent that great, though he is a looker. Gawd is he cute. And I wouldnt call that a Speedo, Id call it an Almost-Speedo that wanted to jump off him (with his help of course). Do you really watch Hardball? Uh, how do you make bold or italics on your comments? I use MS Word and my stuff always come up with no inflections.
Oh yeah, I would never forget the Q on The Next Generation Star Trek shows. He was great, one of a group of omnipotents. Now are you related to them?
Happy Solstice
P.S. I have signed up for google alerts for Ron Paul (cause I hate him), and for John Edwards (cause I love him) and I am getting such emails that keep me up at least on the latest news on the Internet. You might want to check out google alerts for your pet political watches.
Report thisBy i,Q, December 23, 2007 at 1:20 am #
Shenonymous, your call to action for Edwards is well spoken and moving. The metaphor of the solstice marking an important turning point in the ecliptic of American optimism grooves with my own sentiments on the rebirth of hope. Of course, i will be watching with anxious anticipation as the primaries begin to play themselves out. Unfortunately since i don’t live in a state that is considered to “matter” a fertile topic for a discussion in its own right and most poignantly in an area which refuses to engage in political discussion, much less political debate, i fear i can do little to affect the inevitable red state electoral college result. There are just too many “These colors don’t run” bumper stickers cozied up with Jesus-fish on the tailgates of four-door work trucks sucking down diesel at a rate of 15 miles per hypocrisy.
Regarding “The History of Q” which Douglas Chalmers linked to, it is my great pleasure to assure you that i am not the speedo-clad Japanese interpretive-dance-machine/pop-culture phenomenon chronicled in that hilariously perplexing video amalgamation. i wouldn’t mind having those abs though. Maybe i should look into getting an Ab-Lounge so i can work up some rock hard abs while i watch Hardball.
Thanks for the shout out, and thanks for a good laugh!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 22, 2007 at 4:37 am #
#121425 by i,Q on 12/19: “...i am amazed at how much antipathy a haircut can muster…. Agenda seems to be a popular buzzword around here….”
History of Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFIoX7y1wM
Agreed - There is no rescue ‘copter coming to whisk us away to safety; we have to walk our way out of here. One foot in front of the other, as they say, and soon we will be back on the road…
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 21, 2007 at 10:23 am #
Howdy Q, yeah I know, agenda is overworked, but for want of a better word and I was too much in a hurry to get going for the day you know. Would personal ax to grind be better? What I meant by the word idiosyncratic, in this case as Im sure you well understand the meaning of the word definitively, is that you were expressing a specifically indivdidual oblique inclination. Achally I am by way of California and Texass, from wild Pennsylvania and have that accent, or as is the case, a non-accent. I wasnt really offended, so you may be at ease. You have some fine thinking brains there young feller. I do recognize a pragmatic color to your arguments and that is applaudable. But I just came out for Edwards and have explained it as much as I will in my last post here. I will look forward to your opinions and comments as I too enjoy intelligence shown.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 21, 2007 at 1:10 am #
Have we found our candidate? I have a good feeling about this and I dont usually go on feelings, I am not doing so exclusively here either, rather I have listened to all the candidates very critically over the span of time they have been stumping, debating, lecturing and measuring what every one else is saying both proponents and detractors, but I also am adding in the gut factor. I dont get that sinking feeling that I get with the other candidates regardless of their sincerity, promises, and objectives. I have a great deal of respect for Kucinichs principles and program, and even Hillarys courage to wage an intelligent campaign, and Obamas electrifying outlook. I, on this time of solstice have chosen Edwards and it seems there are quite a few others also on this and a few other forums who have too. Now as the new year refreshes we must do more than sound off, we must breathe more life into his candidacy than ever seen before in an election and help him kindle the energy that will bring back this country to the high moral ground and sufficiency it once had. Personally I am going to sign up with his campaign on the solstice as an article of faith and at this moment I feel more optimistic than I have in years.
Happy solstice everyone and may the renewal of the sun be the genesis of a better era for you individually as well as for the world. Let us take this time between winter solstice and summer to celebrate our humanity. A little dramatic I know, but sometimes I get carried away, it is my histrionic nature. But it is done with candor, probity and anticipation of a brighter now.
Report thisBy Emil A. Lawton, December 20, 2007 at 11:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The problems that Edwards mentioned and reported by Bill Boyarsky are a symptom of an economic trap that this country has been led into. From the WTO to NAFTA and the related ...AFTEs we have been sold a bill of goods that the wages for labor are inflated, that the environment should not count if it is in an undeveloped country; that it is a good thing that our manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas. These have been union busting approaches and has contributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases.
Report thisIt may be too late but a new administration should review our “free trade laws ” that have drained the US of her strength. Fair trade may strart the reversal but I am not too optimisstic. From their stances, so far only Edwards seems to want to go in that direction.
By mackTN, December 20, 2007 at 10:50 pm #
John Edwards as candidate for president has is the choice I am now trending toward, having started out as a firm supporter of Obama. I simply like what he has to say, he’s clear and direct about it—he doesn’t equivocate, pause, calculate or hedge.
He understands this immigration problem in the context of Nafta and its impact on both Mexicans and the American worker. Other candidates want to limit the debate on immigration to drivers licenses, survival, compassion, racism—all smoke screens designed to cloud the economic issues and deflect scrutiny of the NAU and protect corporations who want to circumvent minimum wage and worker protections for cheap labor.
Poverty, the weakening middle class, the high cost of health care and medicines, crowded schools are problems that cannot be solved if we keep adding millions ofimmigrants and illegal workers and then allow legislators to pass laws permitting families of these 20 million undocumented workers to come here as well. Any candidate who cannot define the problem will not be able to put forward a solution to it…period.
Forget the haircut, puh-lease. There’s a lot at stake in this election and Republlicans would love nothing better than non-Republicans to get hung up on stupid things. The man has money and he’s entitled to indulge his vanities as he wants—but he also gives away a lot of money and he understands why people don’t have it and why the rest are losing it.
My growing skepticism with Obama is due to his vagueness, lack of specificity on the issues, and an increasingly apparent habit of trying too hard not to displease certain groups, particularly the crossover Republicans in his camp who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
His health care plan allows the status quo to continue by largely preserving the system, only requiring that children be covered—the cheapest demographic to serve. Although he emphasizes his stance on the Iraq vote, he now backtracks on ending the war.
Obama may be, in fact, the most conservative Democratic candidate of the bunch, and I don’t like his corporate allegiances. He presents his credentials on issues—opposed the war, worked with the poor—but they don’t sync with his proposals for the future, they don’t promise a presidential outcome. I’ve yet to hear him explicitly address the problems of poverty except to deliver a policy statement on education—very unoffensive to the ears. And it bothers me that all of people to choose from, he uses Oprah to stump for him (even though she’s black, crossover Republicans love her; she doesn’t scare anyone either).
Report thisBy i,Q, December 20, 2007 at 2:17 pm #
i’m flattered to get a double-posted response
. Please allow me to clarify my position: i think that Edwards is a great candidate and would make a fine President, as would any of the Demsit’s hard to imagine any regime change to be worse! It is my opinion, however, that Edwards has focused his campaign effort so much in Iowa that he doesn’t have enough presence in other states to have a realistic shot at actually winning the nomination, and so he’s a longer shot than Obama. And since Hillary is the least favorite of my choices, and most likely to continue the war, pander to big business, and generally maintain the welfare of the Establishment, i must hope that Obama can win in Iowa and carry that momentum into NH, SC, and NV and overtake Hillary in the national polls.
i apologize if i offended by inferring that a southern speech pattern is folksy. In retrospect it is a loaded euphemism and perhaps an unfair characterization. Despite having been born in Oklahoma, or perhaps in part because of experiences related to that accident of birth, i carry a certain irrational bias against southern accents. Just the accent mind you, not necessarily the mind behind it. i guess on a superficial level, i wouldn’t mind a change of pace after sixteen years of sound bites. On a more sociological note, in this age so strongly defined by the moving image and its requisite sound-bite,it might better serve the interests of repairing our foreign relations were we to elect a President who is the complete opposite of Bush in speech patterns and countenance, as well as policy, party, partisanship, and well, let’s face it, outward appearance. In the pageant of foreign relations appearances, Obama would certainly play the anti-cowboy more easily than Edwards.
i hope you will recognize a pragmatism in my arguments which does not reflect my “perfect world” hopes and dreams in which i am with you in electing Kucinich to office to set up shop with his Department of Peace. But if i am to pursue this pragmatism to its full consequence, i must also admit the possibility of Obama losing the general election on the sad fact that there is a slim but perhaps decisive slice of voters who would vote against him simply on the matter of skin color.
i’m not sure what you mean by my “idiosyncratic agenda.” Agenda seems to be a popular buzzword around here. Everyone has an agenda, benign or otherwise, and mine is not to convert anyone to a particular way of thinking (well maybe to occasionally point out to the anti-pro-Isreal-ites that they are slaves of their own paranoia). i’m just excited to have found a forum where people with genuine intellectual curiosity are exchanging their thoughts intelligently and (for the most part) politely. So thank you, Shenonymous, for offering me my first direct reply. Oh and feel free to call me Q. i,Q only makes sense when i’m saying it, hehe.
Report thisBy joe graham, December 20, 2007 at 10:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
He should really give the narrow thinkers something to talk about and get all his hair cut off. Oh, can ya imagine the “effect”?
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 20, 2007 at 9:53 am #
Like others I sometimes experience computer and Internet failure, sorry about the double posts. I guess it is something we all have to live with sometimes. I know you will forgive and forget about it. Thanx
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 20, 2007 at 8:22 am #
I,Q your post is thoughtful although I cannot agree with you about Edwards and Obama. If anything I believe the better ticket would be with Obama as VP to Edwards president. Edwards shows us what is wrong with America because there are things radically wrong with it. And being from a folksy southern state, way ell, John Edwards sounds jes laik me. He has the experience of the Senate and understands world politics better than Obama. He is brilliant and has the only-can-help law degree, and he has honest care about labor and all the other middle class and poor folks. Whatever is your personal agenda, it is idiosyncratic. It will definitely be a more interesting election than the Kerry/Bush face off, which was a debacle just as the Gore/Bush was and with the Supreme Court that is in the conservative pocket pulling the strings all the way. I like the excitement that Obama brings to the political floor, and I think he will be a fantastic future president. At the moment I think we need someone like John Edwards. Kucinich as I said has the best ideas, but he is not national fare.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 20, 2007 at 8:21 am #
I,Q your post is thoughtful although I cannot agree with you about Edwards and Obama. If anything I believe the better ticket would be with Obama as VP to Edwards president. Edwards shows us what is wrong with America because there are things radically wrong with it. And being from a folksy southern state, way ell, John Edwards sounds jes laik me. He has the experience of the Senate and understands world politics better than Obama. He is brilliant and has the only-can-help law degree, and he has honest care about labor and all the other middle class and poor folks. Whatever is your personal agenda, it is idiosyncratic. It will definitely be a more interesting election than the Kerry/Bush face off, which was a debacle just as the Gore/Bush was and with the Supreme Court that is in the conservative pocket pulling the strings all the way. Let us hope that the magnifying glass the public now is will avoid a same scenario. I like the excitement that Obama brings to the political floor, and I think he will be a fantastic future president. At the moment I think we need someone like John Edwards. Kucinich as I said has the best ideas, but he is not national fare.
Report thisBy Outraged, December 20, 2007 at 7:28 am #
There is no shortage of “interesting” info concerning our presidential candidates is there? I noticed this story from “The Hill” and thought, “there it is, that little annoying link to treachery”. Although the candidates all seem to be guilty of this to a degree….it certainly brings down Obama’s “spit-shined” image and lends some credence to Edwards’ “hard-polish”. From “The Hill”:
concerning Obama:
“Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obamas (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obamas campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).”
concerning Edwards:
“Two members of former Sen. John Edwardss (D-N.C.) staff were registered as lobbyists for the first six months of this year. Adam Jentleson lobbied on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank headed by John Podesta, the White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration. Matthew Morrison registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers in 2007.”
The entire article: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-on-obama s-08-payroll-2007-12-20.html
This reminds me of that “Sesame Street” song…one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong”......
Report thisBy i,Q, December 19, 2007 at 10:23 pm #
i am amazed at how much antipathy a haircut can muster.
Indeed, Clinton’s campaign is falling all over itself to expose its nasty, two-faced power grabbing for what it is. Hillaryous at first struggled to present a sympathetic “her” to the electoral audience, better stylists and make up artists, better lighting in interviews, even smoothing out the shrill squawk in her speech pattern. In the interest of keeping this related to the article, i would venture that she’s spent far more on her physical appearance than Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel put together. (i know it’s not a stretch with Kucinich and Gravel, and do note the omission of Biden—ha!) She had been doing such a great job of acting like a nice human being, eloquent and gracious on stage at early debate performances—until October when she stepped in it and exposed her true colors once more. She will say anything to any group in order to remain in their good graces, and when it back fired on her in the middle of the debate, that’s when we started to see her campaign begin to unravel. She looks tired, has gone speciously negative on Obama, Bill is running amok on Charlie Rose, and the squawk has returned to her voice, grating on my ears every time i see her interviewed saying, “Well, I [insert whining prevarication here]” What she really is saying is: “I am inevitable! Why can’t anybody see that? Why doesn’t anybody like me?”
i think that Edwards is going to make Obama one hell of a VP candidate. As someone else posted, sorry if the truth hurts, but Hillary is Margaret Thatcher in sheep’s clothing, and Edwards has staked his whole populist strategy almost entirely on Iowa, and despite having the platform most beneficial to most Americans, Kucinich was painted out of the running from the get-go, a “Furry Woodland Creature,” to quote Jon Stewart. One of the greatest strengths about Obama right now is that he doesn’t represent much but the hope for change, and because he is still a work in progress, he can appear to many to be many different things. He isn’t that shrill First Lady from the good old days, he isn’t the guy who couldn’t beat Kerry and then couldn’t team up with Kerry to beat the Boy Emperor. He is well-spoken and thoughtful, he seems to be able to consider both sides of an argument before making a case for compromise, he doesn’t seem to lose his composure when confronted, and let’s face it, he looks pretty damn cool wringing his gigantic hands in quiet contemplation. He speaks of hope for a better America, and that is much more appealing than being guilted always by Edwards who is so busy showing us what is wrong with America with his depressing folksy statist-ecdotes, to realize that we already know, and (as evidenced by many posts i’ve read around this site and others like it) are on the brink of cynically throwing up our hands in defeatist capitulation to the inevitability of a fascist monopololigarchy.
For all of our frustrations and suspicions and all of the deceits and sleights of hand we have endured for the last 7 years, we can’t reasonably say that anyone but the Bush administration knows (perhaps a poor choice of words) exactly how f*ed up the big picture is. With that in mind, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to get behind a hopeful, thoughtful leader who will be in a good position to take stock of what will certainly be a disheveled matted coif of a situation—if i may extend the haircut into administrative metaphor—and act accordingly for the situation, rather than someone who’s already prescribed an agenda that may simply be impossible to deliver on. Ultimately the greatest disappointment would be more broken promises. There is no rescue ‘copter coming to whisk us away to safety; we have to walk our way out of here. One foot in front of the other, as they say, and soon we will be back on the road.
Report thisBy i,Q, December 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm #
Is it acceptable practice to click the report comment link on comments obviously making no attempt to relate to the source article or the thread itself? (e.g. 1dree5 spam/drek)
Report thisBy Dennis Moss, December 19, 2007 at 12:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Any dem is better: from the point of view that it gives right wingers the hives!
Report thisBy Shenonymous, December 19, 2007 at 9:58 am #
Its interesting that Giacobbe tries to set himself up for absolutely no criticism. As if anybody really cares about his pompous opinions, except his hubris comes through loud and clear and we find that repugnant. He demonstrates a basher online personality, very common with the weak of mind. He criticizes John Edwards without much substance,
It is one thing to make valid criticisms but to think that ambiguity does it is plain stupid. Giacobbe is one of those hit and run assault sharpies who gives a bunch of bull shit arguments. For instance he said hed rather vote for a on-legged, transvestite, Tourette syndrome, Afghan goat-herder sooner than hed vote for Edwards. Way ell, we will see if we can find one for him to vote for. Wed rather he vote for his phantasy than be involved in our election.
Department of Justice launched political prosecutions against both Edwards and Clinton as possible challengers to the Bush policies, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/22/1151/98789
At least Edwards was honest about accepting public campaign funding and tells the truth about the need for taxes see
http://www.politicalstar.com/
As a matter of fact, if you want to see a concise, objective reporting of all the candidates positions, see the same politicalstar website. You will be surprised at how all-at-a-glance review you can get.
Regarding Edwards receipt of honorarium from UCD, first of all he has to pay taxes on any honorarium because lecturers must fill out a W-2 form before they get paid on any campus. Second it is standard practice to pay dazzling whopping fees to glitz and glamour lecturers and they are paid because students and campuses want them there. Some people of small petty minds are too overly impressed by dollar figures over 10 bucks. Campuses dont have to have anybody they dont want to pay there. So the criticism is rather stupid.
Finally, Edwards adding an attachment to a congressional amendment is also standard practice and all the Washington politicians do it. It is the bargain-way-to-get-things-done in Washington. Just check it out.
It would seem that Giacobbes entire diatribe against John Edwards only present weak argument after weak argument. I only bring this to your attention because I havent even decided who to vote for yet, but it galls me that mental midgets try to persuade with really feeble so-called facts. You must be vigilant against such spindly thinking. And it is your responsibility to check everything out, and I mean everything. Otherwise you are letting others do your thinking for you.
Report thisBy NABNYC, December 19, 2007 at 9:21 am #
The neocon assault on this country began long before George W. Bush ran for office. The biggest change needed to allow the neocons to take control was to revise people’s ideas about values, and what matters in their lives and for the country.
There are no more values except as the preachermen say. And the preachermen focus on and reinforce the old ideology that provides support for excluding women and non-whites from most areas of society. Sex outside of marriage is bad. Homosexuals are bad. Birth control and abortion, and working women, and educated women are bad. Women’s liberation, women’s rights, women’s job demands, women’s education, women’s opinions, women’s concerns are of no consequence except when it comes to child rearing and meal preparation.
What does matter then? Money. Everything is evaluated solely based upon how much money it can bring in. Movies are no longer evaluated based upon story, writing, acting, directing, but instead are deemed good or bad based upon the box office, and DVD rentals and sales. Music is evaluated based upon the number of albums sold. When Brittany Spears recently came out with a new CD, and everyone panned it in advance, when it got decent sales the media suddenly decided it must be pretty good. Not based upon the music, but upon the money. The Apprentice on TV lets the young business people know clearly that the only thing that matters is how much money did they bring in. It’s not personal, it’s business, is just another way of saying that a person can be as ruthless, brutal, and dishonest as they want as long as they do it in the interest of making a profit.
And so our candidates also are evaluated based upon only one question: how much money have they received. We have taken official bribery, a crime that should land these people in prison, and have elevated it into a popular sport. Which politician receives bribes from Rupert Murdoch so they will allow him to own all the media in the U.S.? Which politician receives from Wall Street so they will turn the Social Security fund over to the fee-driven parasites in the stock market? Which politician receives money from the preachermen so they will give our tax dollars to support other people’s religions.
John Edwards is the only candidate who has any substantive policies that could change our country for the better. Hillary is a Republican, and Obama was set up by the DLC, the Clintonistas and the insiders to run only for the purpose of keeping support from Edwards. That Obama is now doing well comes as a big surprise to all involved.
Vote Edwards. The others are useless.
Report thisBy Jason Anderson, December 19, 2007 at 6:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
To 1dree5 on 12/17 at 11:31 am,
That is the dumbest bunch or garbage I have heard to date. You are probably accused of racism because you are a racist. According to you, the jews are to blame for everything wrong in the world. Youre an idiot to think this.
I remember not too long ago someone here critiquing you and your hypothesis. You base your claim on fiction and the work of other racists and when put under the microscope of truth, your hypothesis crumbles.
America is not the corrupt nation you claim it to be and we are not ruled by anyone just our own self interests. Get a grip on reality and the next time you watch the movie Die Hard, remember its not real! It too is fiction.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, December 19, 2007 at 6:20 am #
Then I went and made a complete farce of myself by posting twice. Apologies all around.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, December 19, 2007 at 6:03 am #
#120713 by Robert Giacobbe
Might have been willing to concede a point to you and then you went and made a farce of yourself by having to insert a snark about the silliness of a haircut. I am a John Edwards supporter. I, being a rational human being, don’t expect him to be perfect. I concede that he has made mistakes, taken wrong turns and may have even, gasp, done some things of which I don’t completely approve. Like all the nominees he is a politician. He is still thought to be the best that we can or will get at this point.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, December 19, 2007 at 5:57 am #
#120713 by Robert Giacobbe
Was willing to concede that you might make some legitimate point and then you did it. You made a complete farce of yourself by bringing up the infamous haircut. If that’s the best mud you have to sling you are way out of your league. I support John Edwards and have from the gitgo. I can do that as a rational human being without thinking he is perfect or that he never made a mistake or that he has never done anything wrong. I can accept that because he is the one thing that ALL presidents are: a politician.
Report thisBy Outraged, December 18, 2007 at 7:56 pm #
There was an interesting poll on the Alternet site regarding Edwards. It cites a CNN poll from earlier this month and projects Edwards as the only candidate with enough support to beat the top four GOP contenders. Interesting…....
http://www.alternet.org/story/70781/
Also “Media Matters for America dispells some of the propaganda circulating about Edwards.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/john_edwards
Of the frontrunners, I like Edwards best but that’s really not saying much. My feeling is he is more “hard polished” whereas Obama appears more R