Powered by TypePad

« More Of The Miller Subpoena Decision Unsealed | Main | Shut Up, She Explained »

July 01, 2007


Other Tom

I have a hunch that Gore is hearing messages from on high now--that there is starting to dawn this epiphany, in which it is revealed to him that the people need him in this hour of global peril. After some period of solemn and solitary prayer, he will offer himself up, however reluctantly, in order that the Creator's destiny for him may be fulfilled.

Rick Ballard

"in order that the Creator's destiny for him may be fulfilled."

He's going to re-enter divinity school and flunk out again? You'd think he'd have gotten the message the first time.

Other Tom

I have little doubt that in a vision in the very near future, the Creator will offer His abject apology for that little misunderstanding at divinity school. Appropriate modifications to the catechism will be forthcoming as an act of divine penance.

Magnanimous to a fault, Al will graciously accept the apology and MoveOn.


The most successful (electorally) Democrat president in the post-war era was one William Jefferson Clinton, a candidate who argued, among other notable things, that the party needed to move more to the center.

Why his party has abandoned his less liberal/more centrist views - policies that a large swath of the public would embrace today - mystifies me. (can swaths embrace?).

Well, not really. Can you say netroots?

Rick Ballard

"Can you say netroots?"

Obama sure can. He's having a good time and I hope he continues to do so. Living off of Chicago real estate hustlers had to be a drag.

President Obama will take office in the same way that Senator Lamont did - in the hash hazed minds of the nutrooters who will forever wonder why they don't see him on TV more often.

Foo Bar

Obama would not get a nanosecond of consideration if he were white

How about if he were white but also the son of a former president?


How about if he were white but also the son of a former president?

Being the son of a former President is certainly a tremendous boost for a politician. Just look what it did form Jimmy Carter's son in Nevada. He got quite a lot of financial support. No votes to speak of but he did have tv commercial.


that's commercials (plural)

Jeff Dobbs

Don't ever say he can't raise money.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama announced on Sunday he had raised $32.5 million for his presidential campaign in the past three months, the biggest quarterly fund-raising for any Democrat ever in a pre-election year.

The Illinois senator said more than 154,000 donors had contributed to his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in the April-June period, bringing his total donor list to more than 258,000.

With that kind of money, surely we are turning the corner in the war on cynicism.

Foo Bar


Are you suggesting that Jack Carter would have gotten the Democratic nomination for that Senate seat had he not been Jimmy Carter's son? I think it's safe to say he would not have gotten it, so if you measure things relative to the appropriate baseline I think that's another instance where being a President's son is a big boost.

It's hard for me to see how someone could find Obama laughably inexperienced while at the same time believing that GWB as of 1999 was clearly seasoned enough to be president. I guess it can be argued that having an executive role (as a governor) is better preparation than being a senator. Still, consider the importance of foreign policy these days. What were Bush's foreign policy credentials as of '99? At least Obama has been on the Foreign Relations committee.


What were Bush's foreign policy credentials as of '99?

Compared to BJ and Carter, just being a Rebublican.

Also nobody had to forge BJ's DNA on the blue dress to fabricate a scandal.

Other Tom

Look what being the son of a former president did for those wonderful Roosevelt boys. A cynic would suggest that being the wife of a former president was of some possible account, but such a cynic would not of course be your obedient servant.

I'm not sure that I would agree that the most successful (electorally) Democrat president in the post-war era was Bill Clinton. He never got 50% of the vote (neither did JFK), but LBJ won in a landslide, and Jimmy Carter got a shade over 50%.

I would love to see Al Gore get into this thing, so we can get on with the mission of trashing--if not indeed holding "Nuremberg-like trials" for--the heretics on global warming. And of course we would then learn more about what Hillary thinks about the "consensus," and what it portends for all of us. All sensible people must surely agree that it is proper for politicians to decide that a possible increase in global temperature in the next 100 years of 3 Centigrade degrees is unacceptable, whereas 1.5 degrees would be just fine. Bring it on

Foo Bar

A cynic would suggest that being the wife of a former president was of some possible account, but such a cynic would not of course be your obedient servant

I readily acknowledge that Hillary most likely would not be a senator or a presidential candidate had she not been married to Bill. It does seem plausible that she would have risen at least to some lesser level of prominence regardless of who she married, though. She did graduate first in her class at Yale Law school, after all.


Definitely--and it says something about Yale Law School when she went there that along with only about 20% of the exam takers she flunked the D.C. bar.

Foo Bar

Yes, that is certainly an embarrassing tidbit for Hillary. Whatever that says about Yale Law might presumably also apply to Clarence Thomas, who was there at almost the same time.


Are you suggesting Clarence Thomas benefited from race norming on the bar exam?

One might suggest instead that Hillary is better at the appearnce of competence than competence itself.

Foo Bar

... and Alito...

Other Tom

"She did graduate first in her class at Yale Law school, after all."

And that means...?

No one can seriously dispute that having a politically successful forbear or relative is a huge advantage (more on this below). Whether that is fair or unfair, or neither, seems unrelated to the question whether Obama is garnering a great deal of attention because of his race. Both phenomena may be bad, both may be good, or one of each, or neither. They are simply facts.

Who among us believes that the thirty-year-old Teddy Kennedy would have been elected to the Senate from Massachussetts if his brother had not been the president? (And just think--had he not been elected, Mary Jo Kopechne might have grown into mature adulthood, and benefited our nation in innumberable ways.) Ditto Bobby from New York, and Marilyn Monroe. And would the nation have been aware of any of the Kennedys of that generation had their father not been ambassador to St. James's, and enormously wealthy?

No one would ever have heard of George W. Bush had his father not been president, and Geroge the elder in turn would have had an alternative career were it not for Prescott.

So what? Is lineage an appropriate factor? Is race?


Thomas is much maligned. Read his dissent in Kelo and tell me whose view better protects the poor--His or the majority's.


And did Thomas flunk the bar exam on his first go-round?


Gore has his "Inconvenient Girth" against him.


glaster, If Thomas had, we'd had heard of it and would still be hearing about it--Whereas with Hillary! it has been a deep dark secret about "the smartest woman in the world", hidden entirely for over four decades,mentioned briefly and then radio silence.......


Gore won't get in the race until it's clear Hillary is out. There is bad blood there, and Hillary has the upper hand.

The people pushing Gore are the west coasters, as far as I can tell. He, Hillary, and Obama would have a tough Hollywood primary.


Ofcourse--I remember those hearings on Thomas and have not liked the senator from Pennsylvania since.
What concerns me now is that dimmies are saying that the President should not make the next Supreme appointment--should one become available soon--unless he jumps through all kinds of hoops. What a mess/travesty that would be.


She did graduate first in her class at Yale Law school, after all.

Bet she cheated. Kerry Kennedy and (I think) Billy Bulger's kid were in the class before mine in law school. They were both booted for cheating - and then someone pulled some strings so they could get their degrees with my class. It was ugly.


Whoops--I got the Bork and Thomas hearings mixed there. My apologies.

Other Tom

I was wondering, Glsater--I seem to recall Specter being supportive of Thomas. And I most definitely recall an exchange he had with Bork wherein he revealed himself as so mind-numbingly stupid that it was hard for me to imagine him passing anybody's bar exam, anywhere.

Other Tom

If being first in one's class at law school had anything to do with qualifications for the presidency, I would be leading the Draft Posner bandwagon at this very moment.


If being first in one's class at law school had anything to do with qualifications for the presidency

Or qualifications for most anything if I recall correctly.

Rick Ballard

"Bet she cheated."

I'd bet she floated on the basis of her paen to Alinsky and involvement with the 'right' (hard left) groups at Yale.

The DC bar exam may well have been the first measurement of "what", rather than "who" she knew.

Kinda like her "proven ability" as a futures trader.


OT--Without doing proper research--I believe that Thomas went to the full senate for a vote.
During the Bork hearings IIRC--Specter said something like Bork believed in "original intent--whatever that means."


And I don't believe Bork made it out of committee because of Specter.

Other Tom

Glsater, I'm not sure how what your two most recent posts, taken together, are intended to mean. Thomas did, indeed, go to the full Senate, and was confirmed. Are you saying that Specter caused Bork not to get out of committee, or that he did get out of committee but not because of Specter?

My recollection is that Specter caused him not to get the endorsement of the committee, but that he nevertheless asked for and got a vote of the full Senate, which rejected him.


OT--Ofcourse you're correct on both points. I had forgotten that the full Senate voted and rejected Robert Bork.
I cannot recall, other then Specter, who else voted against him in committee.
My apologies.


There was a brief period of time when Republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan presidency and I could not remember if the Bork nomination was during that time and could have had a bearing on committee leadership.

Other Tom

I don't recall either--i.e., I'm not sure whether Specter's vote determined the outcome in the committee, or was a mere imbecilic spasm on his part. Either way, his performance is seared--seared!--in my memory.


I am so glad to see websites like yours are warming to Richardson's campaign.Richardson
is my governor, and I have known him personally for 30 years. Richardson has achieved remarkbable things through the New Mexico Legislature, but I won't recite the accomplishments. I do want to see him elected President, but I am not connected officially to his campaign.

The so called "top-tier" candidates, all 3 of them, have a collective resume still lesser in quality to Bill Richardson's!(Incidentally, Pollster.com determined very recently that Richardson henceforth shall be considered in the "top-tier," based on his being the onlycandidate who has substantially risen in Iowa!) I am certain that Richardson's real genius and his strongest suit is in international affairs, and that will be vital (and I don't mean as just a future US Secretary of State!), if we are going to even attempt to rebuild the shattered US image internationally, after six years of Halliburton-driven corporate kleptocracy. His debate skills are not as honed and polished as the 3 lawyers in so-called "top tier," but that is fixable. His biography is great (Between Worlds: the Making of an American Life), and the new book on Energy Policy will be just as good.

Here is what I consider the bottom line: you don't have to be a Marxian or Hegelian or a Ph.D Economist to comprehend that our domestic economy is suffering and going to get worse resulting from the on-going international implications of the screwed up foreign policy of this administration, so thoroughly based on corporate needs and demands; as long as we continue to see appointments like Bush's trade negotiator Zoelick made over into President of World Bank to replace "Wolfiewits," don't expect ANY major improvements in the last two years of Bush's tenure, especially in the trickle down economic realms which would improve the lives of individual American consumers.

Richardson has repeatedly made it clear that Congress should deauthorize the Iraq War, and that he personally would end it the first day of his Presidency.

My prediction: Richardson is going to win in Nevada, and he is going to do very very well in Iowa, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and California, I think winning in at least two of those states. May I suggest that you and your readers directly communicate to David Contarino and Amanda Cooper, his Campaign Manager, and Deputy CM, or to Richardson directly through the email function on his NM governor website? These people are very open to new ideas, questions, strategies, insights, etc., and I encourage anyone reading to take the time to contact them by phone or by email, even if you have one question on a policy matter, or want totell Bill Richardson what YOU think.
If you wish, please google the title of my most recent major article, RESOLVING THE WORSENING CRISIS AT THE FDA, published at many websites in many nations.

Stephen Fox
New Millennium Fine Art,
217 W. Water St.,
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
505 983-2002


Ahem, Mr. Fox I don't think that's quite the winning pitch here, even though most of us think--despite his considerable character shortcomings and unfortunate choice of party--he is much better qualified for the post than his opponents.

The comments to this entry are closed.