SuperJerk

If its true, I'm sure it is something perfectly reasonable that will be blown way out of proportion by conservtives. I'm learning that most people (black or white) consider anything that points out the obvious social and economic disadvantages most African-Americans face to be controversial and/or racist. More Clinton campaign sheninigans from yesterday: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/l...o_n_104474.html

Good point. I guess this lady ended up getting kicked out...

Thanks for the insight... As far as the picture goes...I can't understand why someone supporting Clinton could be so vehemently opposed to Obama as the nominee, or vice versa. Its not like we're talking about a Goldwater/Rockefeller or a Truman/Thurmond size split on the issues. New delegate totals, heading into Puerto Rico... http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...31/1091679.aspx

I'd like for someone to rake Sean Hannity over the proverbial coals for some of the positions HIS church has taken over the years. Except, when it comes to himself, he understands that you don't have to agree with everything your church believes or its leader says in order to belong to it. Too bad he's too much of a hypocrite to apply that understanding to others. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm not aware of any other time when a person's church made so much of a difference in his electability as president. Imagine if John F. Kennedy had been pressured to leave the Catholic Church, and then asked why he didn't do so sooner.

Immediately following the Obama press conference this evening, Fox News got Hannity on the phone so he could ask why it took Obama 20 years to leave the church and talk about Obama's connections to people who cheered 9/11. I'm not kidding.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/ The article doesn't mention the shouts of "Denver! Denver!" and Ickes stating Sen. Clinton has the option of taking this to the credentials committee at the convention. The only thing missing was someone yelling "Don't taze me, bro!"

Good news. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24907569/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...versial-church/ Dumb Redneck Guy says... "Does this mean he ain't a Muslim no more?" ______________________________ Also, Factcheck.org weighs in on Mrs. Clinton's bullshit... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cl...her_donors.html ______________________________ The Democratic Party Rules Committee just voted to seat all of Florida's delegates with half votes each. They are still bickering about Michigan. And Harold Ickes really likes saying "you bet your ass."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/30/oba...tml#cnnSTCVideo This is the first election I've seen where people supporting a candidate are not allowed to criticize the opposition. This wasn't an official Obama event, and Pfleger isn't a paid Obama staffer. We're becoming way to sensitive about these things. Is everything that happens at Obama's church now going to be put under a microscope? Can we please apply that same standard to the other candidates? And whatever happened to Clinton's "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" stance? Its okay for Obama to get criticized, but not for her to be I guess.

I couldn't beleive the story until I stumbled across video about the 2-year-old smoking incident. http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/18879459.html

Looks like Pelosi is going side with Obama... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...in-to-end-race/

I would assume the set-top box converts the picture to a conventional analogue signal in order to output it through whatever it is hooked up to the VCR with. coaxial and composite (RCA) cables are analogue formats, so I would assume a conversion is happening before the signal gets to the VCR. Side note: I wonder how many people besides me can go back and read older portions of this thread and want to punch themselves for how misinformed they were in certain older posts.

To be fair, he only talked about the movie so he could make fun of it, and promised he the movie wouldn't be a topic at the end of last night's show. The number 1 story of the night is ALWAYS something stupid.

I don't think that was ever the case. I'm going to assume you're referring to Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy and Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter. Though I'd massively disagree, mainly with Eisenhower (though Kennedy to an extent), and especially Johnson. Yeah...that's a discussion for another thread. I disagree. While I'm not too fussed either way by Obama/Clinton - either way I think there'll be a good president - there are other reasons to nominate her. Also, I disagree with those saying she doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table, as those that do are the same people who abuse her for being a de facto VP to her husband - you can't have it both ways. Most people seem fixated on her time as First Lady. It's valid experience, since she helped shape policy and advance the agenda of the administration (whether that was a "proper" roll for a First Lady is irrelevant...that didn't make her a de facto VP given how Constitutionally limited that roll is). The extent to which she shaped policy and helped advance policy is something that has become a campaign issue. Even within that time there are issues she is running away from, such as her support for NAFTA; and there are things she's embracing, such as her travels abroad and her attempt to get universal health insurance. What I don't see a lot of is discussion of by her supporters is 7 years as a U.S. Senator. In that area, I see more running away from positions than I do embracing them. Her vote for the Iraq War has been something she's only come to regret in the course of her presidential campaign. Her support for No Child Left Behind has reversed. She voted for the original PATRIOT Act, but later tried to get its reauthorization blocked before voting for the watered-down compromise bill. I am beginning to wonder if the entire reason she's running for president just to undo the things she's previously supported.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24860437/ God damn, do I hate Michelle Malkin.

The 20th Century had the blessing of 4 of the greatest presidents in a row, followed by the curse of having 4 of the worst. That, however, does not forgive the only two reasons people can give to vote for his wife: greatness by association, and electing a woman just for the sake of electing a woman. That's not to say that Mrs. Clinton doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table as a candidate, but those seem to be the only two rationales her supporters have been able to give for continuing to support her candidacy.

It's not so hard for me to beleive that, in the process of wiritng this book, he came to some conclusions about his superiors in the White House that may be different that what he felt at the time. One thing I kept hearing from the skeptics all day today was "well, if he was so unhappy with what we were doing, why didn't he resign?" Well, he DID resign. Two years ago. Look it up. Also, the repeated use of the exact words "puzzling" and "this isn't the Scott we knew" from virtually every inside source was pretty damn contrived.

Yeah, I hate Louisiana.

God's been unsuccessfully trying to kill Ted for years.

The thing about Bill is that he looks like a good president when being compared to people like George W. Bush. Hillary is being called a bad candidate when compared to other candidates. Democrats were also a lot more forgiving in 1992, because they'd been losing for 12 years and none of their first-string players bothered to show up to run. This year we actually had choices. And the press was ALL OVER Clinton when he ran too, its just the voters were more forgiving because there weren't any other electable options (excluding Bob Kerrey, who just ran a horrible campaign and dropped out early in the process).

Rush Limbaugh didn't invent the ad hominem. Though to be fair, I did destroy his argument BEFORE resorting to name-calling.

Where Amazing Rando Happens

How many Clinton supporters does it take to change a light bulb? First they have to admit bulb's burnt out. Here's an excellent editorial on the matter.

Bill Clinton, being his usual self... This is all about Michigan. The Clintons want to punish Obama for following the rules and taking his name off of the Michigan ballot. Hillary Clinton wants credit for winning a primary nobody was competing in, and nobody knew would count. Where I'm from, that's called CHEATING. And if there's one man that knows about cheating, then lying about it, it's Bill Clinton.