Hill’s Angels
Want to have some fun? Or, shall we say, something like fun — but different. Then click
here and paw through the droppings left on our comments door step by a flock of Hillaryite cyber-angels. Apparently, last night’s post was circulated on some Clinton list-serve or another and, lo and behold, all of a sudden we’ve got dozens of zealots squatting, dropping trou, and spewing crud all over the site.
Cool.
No problem.
I appreciate the traffic.
I also have no intention of removing or erasing even the most vile comments. They stand, instead, as monument to the vapidity of most campaign politics and in particular those of Senator Clinton’s moribund venture.
As one or two other regular commenters have noted, nary a one of these frothy Hillary advocates could articulate as much as one substantial argument to counter the thrust of my post i.e. that Mark Penn is a walking oil slick –from way back– and that he embodies all of the worst aspects of the Clinton campaign. The Guardian’s lead blog editorial eloquently makes the point:
This was a disaster waiting to happen, and it speaks volumes about Mrs Clinton’s mindset. Mr Penn is a figure from the mid-90s who kept Bill Clinton’s campaign fighting for the centrist vote. He did the same for Mrs Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2000. Both husband and wife owe Mr Penn a debt of gratitude for the quality of his past advice, but neither appreciates how much of a liability he has become today. Mr Penn’s innate conservatism, which can be seen in anything from economics to Mrs Clinton’s refusal to renounce her vote in the support of the Iraq war, is anathema in a post-Bush era where conservatism is discredited. What Democrat voters want, and arguably what America wants too, is not a reminder of how far right a centrist president can be pushed, (the leitmotif of the Clinton/Blair era) but how much distance a new president can put between him or herself and Mr Bush, possibly the worst president in US history. America’s desire for a fresh start is so obvious it is hard to underestimate, but Hillary and Bill Clinton have been making a good stab at it, propelled by the need to re-fight the battles of the past.
The bad news for the Clintons continues to mount tonight:
The revelation that Penn isn’t really out of the campaign. Like the Ace Rothstein character in Casino, he’s merely switched titles.  No longer Chief Strategist, now he’s something more like Food and Beverage Manager.
New polls suggesting a Clinton collapse in Pennsylvania.
More superdelegates sliding toward Obama.
That said, far be it from me to suggest (as I am falsely accused) that Hillary Clinton should drop out.
No way!
I want her to run in every primary left on the calendar. I want her to bend every rule, twist every principle, and bully every DNC member possible in order to re-stage the Florida primary. I want her to go all the way to Denver, thank you very much, and dump all the accumulated garbage of the last four months right onto the convention floor! Let her split the party right down the middle, shatter it into a thousand pieces, and demand that her Michigan delegates –elected Cuban-style with no opposition–be credentialed and seated.
Why not? Hill and Bill have already consumed the best part of their ill-deserved “legacy.” Who am I to stop them from finishing off the last remnants?
April 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I have to say that I think Hillary has done Obama and the Democratic party a real favor with her embarrassing, losing campaign. I’ve been an Obama supporter since he entered the race, but early on I was fully prepared for Hillary’s “ascendance” and so shell-shocked by Bush that I didn’t have much problem with it – except that I wanted her to face some intra-party push from her left. At this point, I’m nauseated by the Clinton candidacy and “strategists” like Mark Penn. (Shades of Dick Morris.) I didn’t trust her on the war and thought her vote to give Bush carte blanche was the biggest mark against her, but at this point it’s clear that she’s not even a competent manager, her conception of “loyalty” within the camp is IMHO disqualifying as Commander in Chief, she hears mostly what she wants to hear, she has worse than dubious judgement in her chosen advisors and that both Clintons subsist on an enormous sense of entitlement within the party and soap-opera levels of narcissism.
Good goddam riddance. Time to move on…
April 7th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Actually, all of those pro-Clinton comments on the previous thread were written by Mark Penn using different aliases. THAT’S his new role in the campaign.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Oh, sorry, rlo wrote his own comments, at least some of them.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Congrats on the traffic spike and all that free content, worth every penny.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have to say that, though kind of shocking in the intense stupidity – and I know all Hillary supporters aren’t that debased – that thread was kind of entertaining. As I said before in response, it was reminisicent of a re-run of “Night of the Living Dead” – except scarier.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Night of the Living Trolls
April 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
To paraphrase Emperor Hirohito in his assessment of Japan’s fortunes in August of 1945, “The primary situation has developed not necessarily to Hillary’s advantage.” I think what we’re seeing as commenters here are the “Hillary” version of those guys who spent the next dozen or more years hiding out in caves on remote Pacific Islands.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Is it just me or does it seem that every other comment by a Clintonite must contain SEVERAL CAPITALIZED WORDS and multiple bursts of !!!!?
What’s up with that? Cyber brain cravings?
April 7th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Speaking as someone who has no horse in the race, primary and general, I find all of this pretty hilarious. You “progressives” pride yourselves on your superior morality, judgement and intelligence, but look what happens when democracy happens, and an election gets contested. Out come the knives, and the heads do roll (see Robespierre, Maximilien).
Both Hillary and Obama have great political savvy and are committed to (i.e., claim to favor) multi-lateralism, national health, withdrawl from Iraq, etc., (insert your “progressive” bromide here).
But no! One must choose, or be damned eternally, between the serial-lying, prevaricating, corporate suck-up hack and the Chicago ward-heeling, prevaricating, corporate suck-up hack who has been sitting around in the pews of Trinity Church for twenty years listening to stories about how the American government invented Aids to kill blacks, so that the Daley machine would punch his ticket.
Purity, thy name is Left.
The Republican party has betrayed pretty much any conservative principle imaginable over the the last 8 years, but since it hasn’t declared for child molestation, it will, again, elect the President.
So long, losers.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“since it hasn’t declared for child molestation”
At least not unanimously…
April 7th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Did someone page me?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
“since it hasn’t declared for child molestationâ€
At least not unanimously…
This is Left and “Progressive” wit and humor with wheels on. Any of you who believe that you can explain the workings of history through the agencies of “Left” and “Right” can now surrender to your religious belief and have a faint chuckle over the idea that the “Right” could ever possibly make as much sense as the “Left,” before getting back to the main business of gut-stabbing traitorious “Left” deviationists.
Anything to avoid having good-faith discussions about ideas.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The more deranged Hillary fans aside, I’ve never understood how so many seemingly intelligent people can believe that Hillary is a strong ant-war candidate. If you like Hillary because you like her healthcare policy, believe her hardball style is necessary, or have some sense of gender solidarity I can roll with that. There’s a legit argument to be made for Hillary, though I think, Obama’s virtues aside, the argument against her is stronger. But those who think she’ll boldly end the war in Iraq are just delusional.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
should read “anti-war candidate”
April 7th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
You know I’ve been following some of the pro-Hillary comments on several other blogs as well and I think that there’s a new form of “Clinton Derangment Syndrome” springing up as her candidacy becomes increasingly reduced to the longest of long shots, dependent solely on inflicting maximum damage within her own party. Kind of sad actually. I fear the final weeks, with Taylor Marsh publishing pictures on her website of puppies she’s going to shoot if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Ummm……wow.
I just keep laughing at the total incoherence and venom. And delusion.
And the hatred leveled at Obama is kind of staggering. I’m kind of stunned actually. Maybe universal suffrage ain’t such a good idea after all.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I think the argument among Democrats should be phrased like this: It’s perfectly OK for Hillary to continue to campaign right up to the fall of the gavel in Denver. That’s not the issue. This is: Since Hillary has no better than an 8 percent chance to win the nomination, she should not be doing anything to damage the chances of the more likely candidate in the general election. As long as Hillary tries to point out the differences in policy between herself and Obama, no harm, no foul. It’s those insidious whisper campaigns that Obama can’t win in the general election that potentially do damage. It’s the tearing down of Obama to the benefit of McCain that are treasonous within the Democratic sphere. The record is clear that the Clinton campaign has been doing these things. The email tornado you inspired demonstrates just how ugly this thing has gotten.
And to Marc: I have learned much from your loathing (to use your preferred term) of the Clintons over the years. Based on your remarks from long ago, I took Bill to be a run-of-the-mill southern politician (ie: a little corrupt and with a gift of blarney) and I think he did a reasonably good job overall as president during a difficult period politically. He might have done better, but another president might have done worse. Or to put it more bluntly, the choice in 1992 was between GHWB and Clinton, and I put a lot of volunteer time into helping to defeat GHWB.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Most interesting to me is the obsession of the Clinton supporters given the fact that she has run a losing campaign. Her campaign is less well organized, poorly positioned politically, destructively self-serving, and lacking meaningful leadership. Were it not for the contrast of the, comparatively, exceptional campaign of Obama she might still be the front-runner, if not the presumptive nominee.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:50 am
It reminds me of when Ron Paul was “in” the race. On the internet his zombies (most of whom don’t really know what he stands for or how awful we would be off with his policies) would storm every poll, forum, or comment section of every blog no matter how small, all instigated by his own campaign’s mailer. All of that talk on the internetz made one think Ron Paul was a shoe-in to the nomination, right? Apparently all of the crazy internet junkies made up roughly 1% of the (republican) population in every state (figures bordering on Nader-like in proportion!)
April 8th, 2008 at 6:38 am
“Anything to avoid having good-faith discussions about ideas.
Right. As demonstrated by such “good-faith”, discussion-promoting comments as this tripe. Let us know when you have something productive to say. “Loser”.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:19 am
And their leader is a racist “ex” CIA guy, Larry Johnson, who seems to be mounting a psy/op.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Don’t go dissing Max Robi, Stott.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:23 am
It was only a year ago that Hillary Clinton was considered to be the obvious choice for the nomination. Strange how it changed–at least to those who admit it.
Of course, I know that Clinton will “bend every rule, twist every principle, and bully every DNC member possible” and will yank the nomination right from under Obama’s outstretched hands. Just watch.
This is the woman supported by “Angels?”
April 8th, 2008 at 7:33 am
It’s funny that Woody has a view of Hillary that makes her out to be almost as much of a Wonder Woman as her crazy fan club. If Hillary manages to snatch this nomination at this poing, I’m goiing to take it as a sign that she does indeed have the Incredible Super Powers ascribed to her by the Clinton Personality Cult and would make the Most Amazing President Ever, which is pretty much what we need now after 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
Of course, none of this is gonna happen…
April 8th, 2008 at 7:34 am
“point”, not “poing”
April 8th, 2008 at 7:47 am
To be fair, some of the “HRC” posts in that thread were obviously plants by either GOP agents provocateurs or just folks having a laugh-eg the one accusing Obama of being related to the head of the Lords Resistance Army and the ones denouncing men.
I’m on the fence about whether the extended race is good or bad for the DP. I have often argued that DP candidacies by the likes of Jesse Jackson or John Edwards make progressives think, wrongly, that they have a stake in the DP and ultimately just corral left votes in favor of conservative DP candidates like the Clintons. To be consistent, I’d have to argue that the conflict keeps the right wing of the DP in the fold by giving them a candidate, even if she loses. Maybe the hoaxers are onto something, though-the campaign may cost the DP votes in the end if supporters of the loser (and, like Woody, I don’t think it’s over yet) peel off to McCain or to a third party out of spite.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Well MB as far as I can see I am the author of all posts with my name on it. I decided to go with Obama after Edwards dropped out but I held no ill will towards Hillary or her husband whom I respected for the job he did as President. I agree with you – as I said elsewhere – that her choice of people like Mark Penn showed very bad judgement but, really, I think that GUARDIAN guy (Michael Tomasky?) got it right. The Clintons are considered masters of American Politics but they missed the key shift in mood that occured under GWB.
Bush 2 reigned over the collapse of the Conservative program. Wherever one looks – Iraq, Katrina, Housing, the DOJ – one sees the rubble of an idea. We tried the right’s solutions and they have bankrupted us and threatened the Great American Middle Class with penury. And, amazingly, it turns out average Joes do care about the Bill of Rights. When Foster won on IL -14 while opposing any Telco Amnesty that message got thru. Now House Dems tell Bush to stick it and, wonder of wonders!, no backlash.
The Clintons missed this. Maybe its understandable given the personal venom of many of the attacks onthem that Bob Sommerby dines out on. But its deadly in politics, as in the military, to fight the last war. Hil missed the change and that has sunk her.
Too bad. But I don’t see her downfall as a personal moment of glee. Rather I’m glad to see the possibility that “A Low Dishonest Decade” (actually much longer than that) has come to an end.
Now if we can only get the Great and the Good in the DC media Village to understand this maybe we can salvage something of our politics.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Well Marc if Penn is really Ace Rothstein I’d worry ,if I were he ,
if I saw Harold Ickes loitering around his wheels!
April 8th, 2008 at 9:31 am
“And their leader is a racist…..”.
Ever met anyone, except a minority…….and yourself of course, that wasn’t a racist JC?
You frivolize the word. Stop it!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Well for everyone wondering what comes next – may I suggest visiting HUFFPO and reading Lawrence O’Donnell’s piece from NEW YORK Mag. Its a sort of “West Wing” Episode (O’donnell wrote for them) or for you fans of Gore Vidal, an updated “The Best Man”.
Four days in Denver:
http://nymag.com/news/politics45786
April 8th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I left a / off:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/
April 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The best evidence that Obama will make a very good president is that he has run a very good campaign. HRC has proven that she can attack and survive, but her campaign has failed miserably to fashion her as herald of a positive message.
Let’s assume that somehow she does get the nomination. We can assume at least 25% of party stalwarts will feel like victims of daylight robbery. Just as importantly, she will go into the general election campaign against John McCain having shown only one campaign talent: the ability to attack effectively. Unfortunately, the guy she will have to attack–McCain–she and Bill have already beatified. He has, as they say, crossed the threshold.
Well, maybe he will implode, too.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
reg:
At this point some feminist will no doubt begin muttering something about woodpiles . . .
April 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
What Jim R said
April 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
8 (or 9?) predictably inane posts by hypertroll “reg” in a few hours. Sadly, Hillary didn’t pay for that old man.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You are on The List, Cooper.
(How did I miss all the fun?)
April 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Come back when you’ve got something to say “Surge”. You’re a pathetic little prick.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:09 am
reg, please watch your language. There are womyn reading this.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:30 am
One could only hope….
Lawsuit: Woman can’t be president
April 9th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Woody, be kind. reg has indubitably not seen a woman in years. His turgid typing ejaculations are all the erotic excitement the old fossil has left.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:53 am
RP
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the person I was referring to as a racist Larry Johnson, defender of Ferraro not to mention the Columbian government for whom he consults alongside Mark Penn, tried to draw a connection between Obama and Gangsta Rap, openly using the “n” word. Why? Hmm. He also proceeded to use a clip from the film 8 mile in which a white rapper (played by Eminem) defeats a Black one. Of all the shit being smeared around abour Obama, it mostly started with Johnson. A shame, I used to read the guy on foreign policy. Talk about a cult
April 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
JC,
I wasn’t referring to Johnson specifically, but your use of the word racist. I find your often cavalier (IMHO) use of it to cheapen it. Just my two cents.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Marc, it’s not just over Hillary. Radical women start calling people names and threatening them even over things like over global warming.
The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist
- – -
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease’”
…It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.
I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.
- – -
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : “Global temperatures ‘to decrease’”
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
- – -
Also, Glenn Beck and NewsBusters Expose Global Warming Bullies
I don’t expect you to roll over, though.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Here we go again. Forget NATURE, forget SCIENCE. Get your news on global climate change from Glenn Beck!
April 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I was a Cavaliers fan before Toronto got the Raptors.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
More substance from The Surge…
Thanks for sharing your deep thoughts.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:54 am
rlc, perhaps you cannot distinguish between an issue regarding science versus an issue where journalism caves in to leftist threats.
Based upon this comment from Jo: “You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”, we may be dealing with nothing more than scorned women.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
What about the men who surround Hillary?
Letter Writer: “I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary’s orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?
“The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.”
Camille Paglia responds: “You have succinctly expressed one of the most unsettling aspects of Hillary Clinton’s character and modus operandi. …I agree that the male staff who Hillary attracts are slick, geeky weasels or rancid, asexual cream puffs. …How anyone could confuse Hillary’s sourly cynical, male-bashing megalomania with authentic feminism is beyond me.”
April 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
See what happens when you give women the right to vote…(shakes head, rolls eyes)
April 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Fifteen questions on issues to see if you align with Rodham-Clinton or Obama – Democratic Primary Quiz
The quiz said that I favor the positions of Clinton over Obama, but the quiz left out any questions about integrity.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Here’s something on Penn — sylvania:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
All tied up.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
P.S.
Scroll down on the link to Bush’s disapproval rating for ‘handling’ the economy — 80%!
April 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Oh, Rob. People weren’t concerned about the economy until the left-wing media started beating it down as just another attack on Bush. Most people don’t know beans about the economy unless they happen to be unemployed. I would say that 80% of that 80% are stupid and believe whatever they are fed.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Kinda hard to argue with you there, Woody. I’m sure McCain’s going to put that on a banner or bummer sticker:
‘Economic Worries? — Don’t be Stupid!’
Sounds like a winner, huh?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
More and more Woody is beginning to remind me of the cranky old man who stayed in a lawn chair in his front yard yelling at the kids to stay off his front lawn – even when we walked on the sidewalk in front of his house.
This, of course, took place when he wasn’t busy yelling at the television.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Woody
You must not be high on the accounting food chain because your sector is suffering.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
jcummings, I don’t know what you’re referencing, but I am pretty low on the chain with a small, local accounting firm. A former classmate of mine is the International Chairman of Price Waterhouse-Coopers, but I remind him that we both head accounting firms. Also, we passed Arthur Andersen on the list of largest firms a few years back.
Rob, your point is exactly what McCain needs to do…(‘Economic Worries? — Don’t be Stupid!’) He’ll be addressing the same crowd as James Carville who came up with a similar saying, “It’s the economy, Stupid.” See, Republicans and Democrats agree–it is stupid people who worry needlessly about the economy.
Randy, I do yell at the televison, especially the weatherman who wastes all my time with all sorts of explanations about the weather, while I only want to know what the temperature will be and if it’s going to rain.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Well, Woody you don’t need a weatherman to know which way — oH never mind!
April 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“I would say that 80% of that 80% are stupid and believe whatever they are fed.”
But not you Woody.
Regarding global warming, god knows I am stupid for going here, what if you’re wrong and we do nothing Woody? Give it some thought before rushing out with guns blazing.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Where as if you’re right and we do something, gas prices will fall.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
If I’m wrong (which I’m not), we adapt. If I’m right we save world economies and allocate limited resources to where they are actually needed.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Woody – you miss my point. You made the claim that the economy is not really going to hell, when every capitalist publication, such as Financial Times, every investment sheet, everyone knows that we may be in for the big one, as it were – and you go ahead and claim that bad economic news is a confabulation of the left wing media. You are right that being a member of the reserve army of labour gives one enhanced understanding of capitalist crisis.
A friend of mine is also at Arthur Anderson. It may well go belly up
April 10th, 2008 at 6:25 am
jc, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
April 10th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Forget fear. Put your money in a matress, dude. This one will be big.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I’m not an alarmist about recessions, but I’ll point out that, when FDR said this, it was a big fat lie. Even that reactionary old drunk Churchill could tell the truth about the blood, sweat, and tears, but American politicians always have a happy face.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“If I’m wrong (which I’m not), we adapt.”
Thanks Woody. I admire your confidence. For us less sure of ourselves, what evidence would you require to deem adaption necessary to begin.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“Forget fear. Put your money in a matress, dude. This one will be big.”
Well so much for global warming, now it’s depression over the depression. No wonder Woody is wont to ignore ‘Fire!”, coming from the left.
What makes these people so god damned emotional, driving away reasonable people from their causes.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m not going to get into a global warming discussion here. However, let me recommend this site for debate among people with credentials:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
April 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Did you know that Bill Clinton was paid $100,000 to speak at UC-Davis, but that the Clinton campaign may be turned over to a collection agency for less than $7,000 that it owes to UC-Davis for a rally? Enjoy the tuition increase, students.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I’m not being emotional. A lot of pseudo- Marxists, WANT the next big capitalist crisis because they think the objective and subjective factors are there for revolution etc. I think that an economic crisis will do for America what Keynes warned would happen in another country. I think it is pretty fucking scary. There’s no will even for a New Deal type solution (and as some point out it wasn’t the New Deal that ended the depression, it was in fact military socialism and the war economy – ie the dread word planning…)
While I don’t go all the way to either Woody or Alex Cockburn’s position on Global Warming, Cockburn’ makes a good point that its an excellent diversion – and a way to get startup capital for what some enterpreneurs- connected to Gore – think will be profitable, and it is also a boon to the nuclear energy. There is a lot of catastrophism to be sure
But catastrophism about capitalism is not at all a bad thing. Americans are gonna have to be ready to fight the fascists that grab power after the upheaval.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Dean: McCain’s Age Worries Voters
DNC Chair Cites Health, ‘Old-Fashioned’ Views
Democrats: “We’re not going to use McCain’s age to attack him, but if we did this is what we would say.”
April 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
It is difficult to listen to McCain [perhaps I should end the paragraph here...] without wondering whether he is incoherent because of age, or whether he never could speak in public.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Hey everybody, did you know that there is a nefarious effort on the part of the Democrat Party to steal puppies and kittens from their rightful households? Woody, could you possibly be any more boring with your tourette-like spasms of tabloid fodder? Piss off.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
David,
Not to worry. It’s just desperation.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 am
Bravo! Please go on!