Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

Tonight, he claimed the following: “There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.”

I don’t think that’s true.  In fact, I remember reading the exact opposite recently.  I’ll start googling now.  I’ll update when I find out.  Feel free to comment.

Share This

In 2005, finally-elected President Bush decided to spend his political “capital” in an attempt to realize the conservative dream: overturning FDR’s Social Security. For those who don’t remember, Bush wanted to spend 2 trillion dollars and turn the Treasury bonds Social Security is kept and let people invest them in the stock market. Yeah, if that sounds smart to you… you need to find out when that labotamy was done to you [Maxspeak.org had some awesome articles on it last year]. Now, Bush has a new plan: this time, it’s to destroy- er, save, healthcare in the U.S. The plan? This part sums it up nicely:

Bush’s proposals will center on health savings accounts, which allow people to set aside tax-free dollars to cover medical expenses. These accounts, which were established under the Medicare Modernization Act passed in late 2003, are tied to high-deductible health insurance policies.This concept is designed to make people more prudent health care consumers because they spend more of their own money. The accounts reflect Bush’s philosophy of an “ownership society” in which individuals take greater control over their personal health and wealth.

So in other words, people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, people who already can barely/can’t afford healthcare, are now expected to pay for their healthcare all by themselves. Fucking brilliant. Greg at The Talent Show takes down this pathetic excuse for a government plan.

I wonder if Bush has ever had to lay all his bills out on the kitchen table and figure out which ones he can pay immediately and which ones can wait until the next paycheck? Or if he’s ever lived in an overcrowded apartment with hand-me-down furniture, eating the same thing six days a week because it’s cheaper? Or if he’s ever had to settle for a job slightly less shitty than the one he had in high school because there weren’t any jobs in the field he majored in? Of if he’s gone through the process of figuring out which generic brand products at the grocery store are as good as the name brands and which ones aren’t?As most of you know, I’m not just describing poverty here. This is normal life for many Americans. Some live paycheck to paycheck, while others are able to pinch enough pennies to save a few bucks. Either way, most people don’t have thousands of dollars to spare.

Practically speaking, savings accounts for retirement and heath care a huge mistake, but for entirely separate reasons. With the latter, the rub is that health care is expensive. Let’s say you have an medical emergency with costs in the $20-30K range. How long would it take you to save that much? A few years? Even with the vague incentives, we’re still looking at a plan that’s the equivalent of asking every American to buy a new car that he/she may never drive.

Amanda also sums it up in one sentence: “Bush expects you to save thousands of dollars if you ever want to see a doctor,” should explain neatly why this sort of “ownership society” program isn’t workable. And that’s all that needs to be said.

Time to nail him to the wall on this.

Share This

And they accuse us of being politically correct. Geesh.

America Online is now acting like God - using what some consider to be His very name in a marketing pitch for e-mail, voice chat, video chat, instant messaging, text messaging and other forms of communication.AIM’s new slogan is ‘I AM’.

[Ian] Millar wonders is any of AOL’s marketing and planning directors ever went to Christian Sunday school or attended Jewish services. He points out to AOL executives that “I AM” is the English translation of YaHWeH, the self-proclaimed name of God.

“He is the Creator and Savior of the world,” explains Millar. “He alone is to be worshipped. To take His name in vain, or use as a common thing is blasphemy, a vulgar sin of offense. Perhaps you have not read the Third Commandment, since they have removed it from so many public monuments in the last decade. But breaking it as a means of marketing your products offends the mind of everyone who worships Him.”

You guys are fucking insane. Seriously. Wtfbbq?!?!?!?!

THE ZOMBIES ARE EATING MY BRAIN!!!!

Share This

Do take this with a grain of salt, but Casey actually performs worse against Santorum than his two primary challengers, when the people polled are informed of their positions. And since primaries tend to be the most informed members of the base… well, this certainly strikes a blow to the “Casey is our best bet” argument; I think Pennacchio needs to be pushed. He also has a very good chance of taking down Santorum, and he’s a really good progressive [he believes in a living wage; sweet!]. This is the kind of thing we as Democrats need to get behind; people unafraid of not only giving the Republicans rhetorical hell, but of also standing for true Democratic and American principles.

Share This

So, in the wake of the Alito confirmation and the rest of this terrible month, I think I need to post this to remind everyone to NOT GIVE UP. We still have a job to do; we’re not dead; nothing is permanent. So to rally the troops, so to speak, I have something I’d like to post.

Let’s face it. You can’t count on them to give you straight information. You can’t count on them to tell us straight why we’re going to war. You can’t count on them to tell us what’s happening over there.

You can’t count on them to do their homework. To keep track of our money. You can’t count on them to punish war profiteers. You can’t count on them to protect our troops.

You can’t rely on them for much of anything. Armor. Veteran’s benefits. You can’t count on them for the true story of how Jessica Lynch was captured, or how Pat Tillman died. Even for how the “Mission Accomplished” sign went up on the USS Abraham Lincoln. They actually lied about that.

You can’t count on them to count terrorist attacks. You can’t count on them to count civillian victims. You can’t count on them to listen to military commanders and send in enough troops, or to not lie about the commanders asking them to send more troops, or to listen to Colin Powell and not torture people, or to not lie about whether the torture policies started at the top.

You can’t trust them to care. About Iraqis. About Americans.

You can’t trust them to do the work of actually signing killed-in-action letters. You can’t trust them not to lie about not signing killed-in-action letters.

You can’t count on them to acknowledge any mistakes whatsoever. You can’t trust them not to lie when confronted with these mistakes.

You can’t trust them not to believe their own propaganda.

You can’t trust them. Period.

I don’t know what to do in Iraq. I don’t trust them to stay, and I don’t trust them to leave. They send the right-wing media out there to say that any of us who have been critical of the war at all just want to cut and run. I don’t. I want to succeed in Iraq, but I don’t know if it’s possible. I’ve wrestled with this, talking to people on all sides of the issue. Some people think that our presence there creates more chaos, and that we should leave. Other people think leaving will cause a civil war, but others say we already have one. Most believe that whenever we leave, there will be more chaos–but that will be true whether we leave now or five years from now, so we should start phasing out now.

Other people think it’s possible to negotiate with the Sunni insurgents, and work with other countries to seal the borders and stop foreign jihadists from entering. some people think that the only way to defeat an insurgency is to send in hundreds of thousands more troops–and others think thay that would have helped three years ago, but that it’s too late now.

But as much as I and others have agnoized over this, it doesn’t matter. The Bush administration does not care what you or I think should happen in Iraq. Six to eight people make the decisions, and they don’t listen to anybody else. And the Republican Congress has let them get away with it. They have refused to hold anyone to account. Every day, they have a chance to do their job–and they don’t do it.

If you want to know what I think we should do in Iraq, it’s that we should think about what we have to do in America. We have to throw these guys out.

Step one is 2006.

The work starts now.

-Al Franken: The Truth, with Jokes

Share This

In jedmund’s post on Crashing the Gate, he pointed out that kos lays out a framework for a party with no ideal except for that which its candidates espouse [kos actually confirmed this, much to my chagrin, by dismissing Casey’s primary challengers as “not serious”.  Fuck you too, kos].  However, I think Armando better espouses kos’ own system better than kos does.  Armando speak, you listen.

We need more Dems willing to fight for us in the Congress. And that is what Election 2006 will be about. Personally, in the primaries, I will support the Dems who will fight for our ideals and our well being. I am a Big Tent Dem, and I will support almost all the Dems in November, but in the primaries, I fight for the principles of the Democratic Party.

Exactly; I will support Casey in the general over Santorum, but in the primaries I will support the candidate who better represents the principles of the Democratic party [Go Chuck!].  That raises the question, what exactly are the principles of the Democratic party?

Over the next few weeks, I plan on discussing exactly what these principles are, and why I feel Chuck is a better representative of them than Bob.

In the meantime… I have homework.  Auf Wiedersehen!

Share This

I was just listening to Lewis Black and had to share this.

“People are afraid of gays getting married. You mean to after 9-11, that’s something your going to fucking worry about?… Why don’t you have an amendment that you know, say that people in this country have a right to health care even if they don’t have a fucking tie! And why don’t people want gays to marry? The bible. And where in the bible does it say that? The old testament. And who wrote the old testament? My people. The Jews wrote it. And then Christians come along and fuck it up from time to time. There was a reason that was written back then, thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago when we were savages at best, we were like ten hairs away from being a baboon for fucks sake.” — Lewis Black

~Justin

Share This

Via God is for Suckers!, we learn that the pharmacy in his town doesn’t sell condoms. Buh?, you say? Exactly.

“Where would the condoms be?” I asked with total sincerity and seriousness- I am an adult after all.

“We don’t have condoms.”

“You’re a pharmacy without condoms?”

“Well,” she scoffs, “that’s not exactly the kind of behavior we want to promote now, is it?”

I could feel my eye twitch and I wanted beat the smile off of her face; however, I just laughed and said, “Whatever makes you happy.”

[snip]

I am only reminded of the fundamental problem in religion-fueled, forced ignorance about sexuality. Removing proper sex education from public schools and replacing it with abstinence education is morally reprehensible. Our teens should not be made afraid of sex and told to ignore their own sexuality- they should know the cost of improper decisions made before, during, and after a sex act. Really, abstinence education forces your children to get a sex education from parties that are far less informed:

1. Their peers (your dick gets hard cause there is a dick bone that comes from the bottom of your spine)
2. Hollywood (sex will lead to either the greatest relationship of your life or a bloody, gruesome demise)
3. The internet (all women want to gag on your cock; all men can give you multiple, mind shattering orgasms)
4. Etc, etc…

It’d be more funny if it weren’t for the fact that their party runs the government.

Don’t like it? Stop voting Republican.

Share This

Booman Tribune makes a good point: he doesn’t know anybody who wants to vote for Bob Casey. I don’t either.

Does anybody from PA know anyone who wants to vote for Bob Casey? Oh, and the Booman’s right on one other count:

Rick Santorum is one of the most loathsome politicians in America. He is also the least popular Senator in America in his home state. He is vile terrible person. Defeating Santorum should not only be one of our greatest priorities this year, but working toward that goal should be a joy…it should be fun and exciting.

Bob Casey as an opponent ruins that chance. Pennacchio and Sandals are all that is standing in the way of a showdown between Casey and Santorum. Casey won’t even debate them.

Casey should drop out of the fucking race. All he is accomplishing with his anti-gay rights, anti-science, anti-choice candidacy is to piss off Democrats and Democratic activists.

We need to send a message to Chuck Schumer that we don’t want to ever see a candidate like Bob Casey recruited again. Schumer clears the field for Casey and then has the unmitigated gall to get indignant about abortion rights in the Alito hearings. Watching that display of gross hypocrisy literally turned my stomach. I had to eat a saltine cracker to absorb some of the bile that aroused in me. If I could of slapped Schumer through the television set, I would have.

Goddamn Casey endorsed Alito. Did you notice that, Schumer? Your fucking boy stepped all over your message. What a goddamn clown you are to think Bob Casey was the right choice for Pennsylvania.

Share This

Yes, I’ve decided to be a little more active as the primary approaches. Casey is obviously a wanker, and I think that PA Dems need to support Chuck Pennacchio [sorry Alan Sandals… but there can be only one!] for our Senate nominee. Besides being a “better liberal”, he’s got one other thing: consistency. Chuck has laid out a consistent ideology and a series of issues and where he stands on them. He’s got a clear message, and he’s sticking to his guns. Bob, on the other hand… is kind of an idiot. His support of Alito is based entirely off the anti-choice thing, completely ignoring every other stance Alito has [worker’s rights, for example, which Alito is TERRIBLE on] that conflicts with him. I think John at AmericaBlog articulates it better:

Will I continue to support Casey over Santorum? Define “support.” Would I vote for Casey if I lived in Pennsylvania? Yes. Will I pull out all stops to help Casey? Unlikely.

What Mr. Casey needs to learn is that the game isn’t decided simply by saying “the Santorum-haters have nobody else to support, ha ha ha.” We can still be dispirited by your candidacy, and sit back and not help very much, and write lots of bad things about you on a regular basis because you often kind of make us sick. That will affect your fundraising, your media, and your get-out-the-vote. And if you don’t think any of that matters, then you don’t deserve to be a Senator.

If Casey beats Santorum, yes that helps the Democrats take over the Senate. But a Senator Casey will be another Lieberman, screwing us every time he gets up to vote. And that’s something we’ll tolerate only so long. Mr. Casey might want to watch what Joe Lieberman goes through this spring as we all support his Democratic opponent in the primary. Casey could be next.

Share This

Moving away from simply a Santorum Watch… we find that my prediction in my post on Kos’ book was correct: Atrios calls Casey and Rendell out for being wankers. Seriously, I know Casey is supporting him because he’s pro-life, but one issue is not a reason to support a judge against every other issue [ie Imperial Presidency]. I wonder if Casey is actually pro-life-movement and not just anti-abortion [there is a difference, as I have continually marked]. If there were one question I could ask Casey and his Dem challengers, Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals, in a debate, it would be: “My question is in two parts; the first is for Mr. Casey, and the second is for all of the candidates. Mr. Casey, your opposition to abortion rights is well known; however, my question is not about that but rather a question about being pro-life. The members of the pro-life movement are marked not only by their opposition to abortion, but also their opposition to in vitro fertilization, birth control pills, any contraceptives of any kind, and sexual activity which does not result in or is an attempt to cause a pregnancy. Mr. Casey, with this description, do you feel this is an accurate description of your beliefs; and could all of the candidates please elaborate what sexual freedom means to them, and how this would be reflected in their job as Senator. Thank you.”

Unfortunately, I have a gut feeling that Casey would dodge and/or answer vaguely. Which is why I’m voting for either Pennacchio or Sandals. Links to their sites are below.

Pennacchio’s site

Sandals’ site

Share This

Yes, the junior Senator from my state of Pennsylvania is well-known for his religious right-ness… but now he’s also a confirmed Chickenhawk. This is amazing. Santorum compares putting a Santorum bumper sticker on your car to serving in the military in Iraq. Wow.

And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what’s at stake. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I’m asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?

Yeah, we know Young Republicans won’t actually step up and serve in the military. It’s not for their “kind of people” *spits* fucking wankers. They disgust me.

Share This

I know it’s not for a few days… but today we have a preemptive strike by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Oh. My. God. It’s a good one. I think I might just quote the whole thing!

I went to college in the 1960s and studied government. One of the things I remember discussing was a quote by Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”

It’s been many years since I graduated college, but I finally understand what Lord Acton meant.

Republicans today control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. They have absolute power, and it has corrupted their Party and led to the culture of corruption that we see now in Washington.

We have the Republican leader of the House of Representatives, admonished three times for ethics violations and under indictment now for money laundering.

We have the White House, where an employee has been indicted for the first time in 135 years.

There’s Karl Rove, who is under investigation… and David Safavian, the man appointed by President Bush to be charge in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts who was led away in handcuffs because of his dealings with Jack Abramoff and others.

And then, we have the Republican “K-Street Project, which has invited lobbyists inside our nation’s Capitol….as long as they are willing to pay the right price.

The Republican abuse of power comes at great cost to our country, and we can see it in the present state of our union. Special interests and the well-connected have grown stronger, while our national security… our economy… our health care… and our government have grown weaker.

What is the state of our union in 2006?

We have a national security policy that protects Halliburton’s bottom-line with no-bid contracts | but sends our troops to Iraq without body armor.

We have Vice President Cheney’s energy policy that helped Big Oil make a hundred billion dollars in profit in 2005 | but this same policy has America paying 70 dollars for a barrel of oil and families paying twice as much for heat and gasoline as did in late 2001.

We have students priced out of college by skyrocketing tuition - and Republicans in Congress who want to cut student loans in order to pay for special interest tax breaks.

We have 46 million Americans without health insurance and poverty numbers on the rise – but a President whose economic policies benefit the wealthy and well-connected.

This is what happens to the state of our union when leaders put special interests ahead of the America’s interest.

These are the costs of Republican corruption.

The question…. is will President Bush acknowledge these costs when he delivers his State of the Union next Tuesday night?

If history is any indicator, the answer is no.

Watching the video earlier, I was reminded of another lesson from college, this one taken from George Orwell and his book, 1984.

In that book, Orwell spoke of “doublespeak” - naming something just the opposite, in order to cover how unpleasant it is in reality.

As we saw in the video, the President has been giving us doublespeak for years. He utters platitudes about helping Americans, when he’s really helping his special interest friends.

When he wanted to let energy companies release more pollution into the air, he called it the “Clear Skies Initiative.”

When he wanted to give tax breaks to his special interest friends – even though it meant adding more than $50 billion to the deficit, he called it the “Deficit Reduction Act.”

His “Leave No Child Behind Act” is leaving children behind every day because he refuses to fund it. And his new Medicare drug benefit hardly resembles a “benefit” for seniors.

Tuesday night, it is time for President Bush to end to this pattern of deceit. In his State of the Union, it is not enough for him to declare that the “state of our union is strong.”

America can do better, and only the pessimistic would suggest anything less.

In his speech, the President needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong.

The President can start with national security.

In his 2005 address, the President said: “In the three and half years since September 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans.”

It took only seven months and the winds of Katrina to prove he was wrong.

Americans have heard tough talk from President Bush over the last five years, but the reality is, his policies have made America less safe.

The President’s failed record speaks for itself.

Just over four years ago, Osama Bin Laden attacked America and took 3,000 lives. The President said at the time that he wanted Bin Laden “dead or alive.”

But four years later, Bin Laden is still on the loose and continues to threaten America. Meanwhile, the number of terrorist attacks across the world has increased, and we now face the risk that Iraq will become what it was not before the war: a haven and launching pad for international terrorism.

Four years ago, the President declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an “axis of evil,” whose nuclear threats we needed to preemptively strike.

But four years… 23 hundred American lives… and more than 250 billion dollars later, we have found that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the problem of Iran has been outsourced to Europeans, and North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has likely quadrupled.

Four years ago , the President said in his State of the Union: “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” which include the “the rule of law.”

But four years later, we’ve heard that the President has ignored the rule of law in order to spy on Americans. We’ve also found that the White House given the green light to torture, even though it violated our laws and made our troops less safe.

After reviewing the Republican record, I know why Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove want to play politics with national security in 2006 instead of having an honest debate about who can keep Americans safe. It’s because this is a debate Republicans cannot win.

Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence.

Democrats know that keeping Americans safe means more than talking tough.

It means providing our troops proper planning and equipment, like body armor.

It means securing our ports, nuclear plants and cargo holds.

It means making 2006 a year of significant transition in Iraq.

And– it means doing everything in our power to protect, not trample, the rights set out in this document.

Tuesday night, the President must unite the nation behind our most important goal – keeping our people and way of life safe. We need to hear honesty and humility from the Commander in Chief, not swagger from the Campaigner in Chief.

After national security, the President needs to talk honestly about what he has done to the economy.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, the President said: “We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and to other generations.”

That might not be doublespeak, but it is deeply dishonest.

President Bush is “passing along” problems to other generations. He’s bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy.

Next month, because of George Bush’s reckless spending, America will hit a debt ceiling of 8.2 trillion dollars

In 2005, we had the third-highest budget deficit ever - 319 billion dollars.

Two years earlier, we had the second-highest budget deficit - $378 billion.

And in 2004 – the year President Bush was re-elected - we had the highest budget deficit ever - - $412 billion.

In baseball, it’s three strikes, you’re out. But under the rules of this White House, that fiscal record is a home run for special interests.

George Bush has no one to blame but himself for today’s fiscal mess. Not 9/11… Not a weak economy… And certainly not the Democrats.

Democrats want to return to the responsible fiscal policies of the 1990s – led by Bill Clinton - that yielded a budget surplus. We believe in restoring “pay as you go” rules. We’ve fought the president’s irresponsible spending, and we’ve promoted a pro-growth agenda with tax fairness for hard-working Americans.

We have a proven record. The Republicans do not.

Tuesday night, the president has the opportunity to show that he understands what is happening to our economy. He needs to acknowledge the anxiety felt by middle-class families, who are seeing their wages go down and their costs go up.

And he needs to speak honestly about how he’s going to put our fiscal house in order, so we do not pass his enormous debt on to our children and grandchildren.

Next, the President needs to talk about how he’s going to fix his bait and switch Medicare drug program.

In his 2003 State of the Union, President Bush called Medicare the “binding commitment of a caring society.” Three years later, we can see it is not seniors the president cares about.

Democrats have always supported adding a drug benefit to Medicare, but nearly all of us voted against the Medicare Bill of 2003 because it was clear that President Bush’s plan would help drug companies more than seniors.

Unfortunately, time has proven us right. The state of our union today is that we have seniors begging in the streets for the medicine they need.

We need to fix Medicare and do it now.

Last week, Senate Democrats introduced a plan to fix the Medicare crisis this White House has created.

Tuesday night, we must hear a similar plan from President Bush.

The President’s fourth obligation is to talk honestly about energy.

In previous State of the Unions, George Bush has offered lofty rhetoric about making America “less dependent on foreign energy.” But for the last five years, America has moved in the opposite direction.

In 2000, 58.2 percent of the oil we consumed was imported. Today, that has increased to nearly 62 percent.

As our dependence on foreign oil has gone up, so have prices. Heating costs have risen by more than $500 per month for some families since George Bush’s first full winter in the White House, and the cost of gasoline has increased by 56 percent – with no end in sight.

Democrats have offered a series of proposals to make America energy independent by 2020, to create new jobs and to strengthen our country.

Tuesday night, it’s time for the President to turn his rhetoric on into action. He needs to level with the American people and admit that making us “less dependent on foreign energy” will take more than giveaways to Big Oil - - giveaways exemplified by the Republicans attempt to break Senate rules in the middle of the night and open the pristine Alaskan wilderness to drilling.

We stopped them, and I’m glad.

Finally, we must hear the President commit to honest leadership.

In his 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring “dignity” to the White House… but we’ve since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead.

President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House’s connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he’s going to reform Washington.

Honest leadership is not a partisan goal. It is the key to a stronger union. When we make leaders accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.

We can be energy independent… have affordable health care… a strong economy… and real security.

Last Wednesday, Democrats unveiled our Honest Leadership and Open Government act.

I assure you - - that is not Orwellian doublespeak. Our bill does exactly what it says.

Tuesday night, President Bush must show that he is committed to similar reforms.

When the President speaks next week, he faces a choice: offer a fresh start or more of the same.

He can continue to speak in platitudes, like we’ve seen in the last five State of the Unions, or he can choose to come clean. On Iraq… On Corruption… And how the Republican Party’s wrong priorities are holding America back.

2006 can be a year of promise, all it will take is a commitment to honest leadership from President Bush when he speaks in seven days.

He needs to join Democrats in putting progress ahead of politics, so we can have a state of the union as honest and strong as the American people.

Wow. Brilliant. That last part, especially, because you know the speechwriters had inserted something about the Democrats falling behind and supporting some sort of Republican agenda. Way to go Reid. You’re earning your Leadership post.

To 2006!

Share This

As Arianna of The Huffington Post documents here, the prevailing Beltway Common Wisdom [CW] is that Hillary will be unbeatable in the 08 presidential primaries because she’s unbeatable. Right. Their reasons are that she’s making “Red-State” inroads, and that her base is sewn up tight. Hah. No seriously, that’s what they said.

I don’t know what they’re smoking in DC, but it must be pretty strong stuff. Arianna takes down those two arguments, but I wanted to apply some anecdotal evidence to argue a third reason she won’t win the primary… and even if she does, she would not win the election. My reason: moderates, particularly moderate middle-aged women, hate Hillary Clinton.

My family is actually fairly moderate, on the average [my dad’s an exception], and they have been trending liberally over the past few years [I’d like to credit myself, but I think it’s because Bush just sucks that bad]. Nonetheless, these liberal-leaning moderate women absolutely despise Hillary Clinton. I asked my mother why, and it’s not some policy dispute or governing tactics; she just doesn’t like her.

Sure, it’s completely irrational. Human beings are irrational. But these irrational humans have a vote. And they would not vote for Hillary.

I’d like to see some data on that… poll American women between the age of, say, 30-49 who describe themselves as moderate about Hillary. See if my anecdotal family [and family friends as well] is representative or not.

Share This

Reminds me not to blog at night, people… this is about my “intra-group debate” post below.  I had incorrectly cited Amanda as the author, when really it was her co-blogger at Pandagon, jedmunds.  I have made the appropriate corrections.

Figures… Amanda reads my blog and I’m being a dumbass.

Share This