godthedog

this is one of the weirder mental pictures i've gotten in a while.

and to think i was starting to feel okay about this race now with both candidates being a little conciliatory once PA was decided and hillary's newfound grassroots funding abilities...this shit is just dumb on so many levels. among other things, she's saying that in a state where voters are not given the choice between her and obama, democrats choose hillary. i hope she goes on tv soon to say, "well, if you don't count the votes for obama, i've won every single state so far! i've swept the democratic primary like no other candidate before!" what makes me sad is that the big question mark over michigan & florida is a legitimate issue that should be discussed in terms of electability, but since she apparently can't make a proper argument like an adult, she needs to go sit at the kids table.

i predict a 5-6 point win for hillary. anything closer than 4% should be considered a big loss for her. 4% or above should also be considered a big moral loss for obama. not just for the disproportionate spending, but the endorsements he's gotten.

to be fair, by promising voters a higher standard of discourse obama's left himself more open to these kind of "mischaracterization" attacks. hillary's made a number of these kinds of attacks, but she's never said anything about promising voters not to play the game (so to speak). if this were indeed the whole content of obama's attack on mccain regarding iraq, for instance: then it is exactly of the same rhetorical inflation & dishonesty that obama claims to be above. i don't think the argument quite works because obama spells out much more carefully what he thinks is wrong with mccain's strategy outside his rallies and stump speeches (where people don't come to hear multi-step policy statements), but in principle he's absolutely open to this kind of thing and it doesn't make a difference if anyone else was misquoting too. specifically on the question of the economy, the criticism seems about right, since i don't know of any other way obama's put it up to this point.

there's a certain art in politics of answering the same question over & over again in different arenas as if it was asked for the first time, which obama really has not gotten the hang of. i know he's sick of answering for these things, but for voters who haven't followed his every tv appearance and website announcement, he's not doing himself any favors with the number of times he tells his interviewer, "i've said this before." it just sounds smug and exasperated, especially in the debate the other night when it was being asked by an ordinary middle-aged woman from latrobe.

that whole 'moonwalker' videotape was soooo the shit. i don't even know if i could pick a favorite on it...possibly "smooth criminal." it's REALLY hard to top the comedy value of michael jackson holding a tommy gun.

now that's just impolite and uncalled for, after asking me to be specific about what i was unclear on. that's some psycho-killers-in-'funny games' psychological mindfuck shutting down of meaningful dialogue shit.

rip him apart for what? years of what? by 'either topic'...you mean the art project and the insane thing? in what way were you hoping to engage him? i get the impression of some elephant in the conversation that you both know is there but won't give a name to.

i demand less vagueness from all parties involved.

my guess would be that restriction doesn't apply to primaries (though i'm not sure). i'm registered here as a democrat...that's the only way i can think of that they'd have the number, because my cell phone still has a virginia area code. my fiance gets them too. it's weird. also while watching 'american idol' tuesday, i saw the music-video "we can change the world" obama ad, followed IMMEDIATELY by clinton's new "bitter" ad. i couldn't figure out what my tv wanted from me, and i cried.

the clinton campaign is repeatedly calling my cell phone. i'd enjoy the attention if some 19-year-old broadcast journalism major with a mouthful of marbles wasn't always the one talking for the recording. interesting article that was linked, but the implicit conclusion (that only individual agents can be causes of problems and not habits or trends or ideas, one of which obama addressed repeatedly at the debate last night with examples) was sort of dumb.

See, I gotta kinda think thats the point. the whole "Look at what I am allowed to do...this is why abortions are WRONG~!" that just might be self-defeating and retarded enough to be exactly what an art student was really thinking.

i'll give it a shot, as long as it doesn't involve posting in short time windows--my end-of-semester schedule is requiring me to sometimes be away for a day or more at a time.

that's just a front. she's really going back to NY to punk utica.

i was expecting more after a few days' absence--either more substance or something that was better at being inflammatory. this was neither trollop nor cunt, just sort of middling.

From huffington via rawstory. That's hilarious. i'm really torn. on the one hand, this probably means mccain calls his wife a cunt without irony on a regular basis, which is...well, evil. on the other hand, putting the words "cunt" and "trollop" in the same sentence is just brilliant.

i seriously had no idea there were people who liked the three stooges this much.

that felt like it needed to be an hour, but i thought it was great. that was some surreal harold pinter shit there.

if you're not of voting age, it still feels more like a fan than a member. do you personally make phone calls and such? (not being rhetorical about that--you've worded it pretty ambiguously.) i'd suggest donating something to one of their campaign funds (even something as small as 20 bucks).

and the gulag has lost its entertainment value and gotten shitty & petty. leena's a firecrack when she's got the stage to herself, but when people start interacting with her it just becomes about their conversation. all posts in the gulag are supposed to be for EVERYONE AND NO ONE.

his brownface out-of-placeness gets justifiably shit on in 'touch of evil', but he was really good in that role, exploring the darker side to that strong moral self-righteousness that defined his on-screen persona. he was a fucking animal in that barfight, beating the shit out of the local mexicans and screaming "WHERE'S MY WIFE??!!?" awesome stuff. fuck, i need to watch that movie again.

where exactly does this impulse to name best and worst presidents in ranking order come from? this works for things like music, where you use the list as a function of your own taste and expertise, as your list is saying something about you as a person, and part of the fun is the total absence of standards...but somehow this listing of presidents is supposed to prove something? despite the vast differences in circumstances, goals, and overall picture, which are by nature unquantifiable? that's a parlor game, that's not real history.

it looks like it's the beginning of "fuck michelle with [something]." which i actually think is a better name.

what legacy?

why? because he's black and thus should be the last one to get anything?