You're right. It's not the time for "Obama Happy Talk." But I guess it IS the time for Clinton lies, distortions, race-baiting, and nepotism.

While both Obama and Hillary offer detailed policy proposals, Hillary is, at best, a modestly experienced legislative bureaucrat who is among the least popular and most polarizing politicians in the country. Obama, instead of trying to appeal to people's fears and prejudices, is appealing to their better instincts. Do you really imagine that the poisonous atmosphere engendered by Cheney, DeLay, and the rest of the right wing hate machine is impossible to replace? Then you're just a cynical fool.

Posted at January 28, 2008 4:05 AM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

The reason this is happening is not because the Clintons are racist (they are not, of course) it's because Hillary is such a bad candidate. She spent a year bleating about how important experience is instead of establishing a rationale for her candidacy. She still doesn't have one. She expected to be essentially unopposed. The "experience" meme is absurd, prima facie. If she's nominated, she'll have less experience in government than any major party candidate in at least a hundred years, and her most likely opponent will have FAR more experience; will she then vote for McCain?

On top of that, her candidacy is based purely on celebrity and nepotism. Not to say she wouldn't be good at the job, but there's no rationale other than her marriage to the ex-president for offering it to her. The Republicans will eat her lunch on this basis alone.

She's unpopular, uncompelling, and ineloquent on the stump. her husband may yet muscle her into this nomination, but if the Dems nominate her, they deserve the thrashing they'll get in November, and the dissolution of the party that will occur afterwards.

Posted at January 27, 2008 8:37 AM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

You like guilt by association? How's this: Hillary's closest campaign adviser and pollster has for years been an active public relations flack and lobbyist for the cigarette industry, a p.r. flack for Blackwater, and has been an active anti-unionist for decades.

Some minister Obama knows allowed a magazine published --what--BY his church?--IN his church--by fellow church members?--to give some award to Farrakhan?

That's nothing compared to Clinton's direct connection to killer industries like Big Tobacco and paramilitary groups.

Posted at January 15, 2008 7:55 AM in response to Playing With Fire: Smearing Obama Among Jews

The right wing doesn't oppose big government, it opposes GOOD government. As long as the government is spending billions on unnecessary wars and weapons systems, as long as it's spying on millions of its citizens, imprisoning them wholesale, limiting their freedom of expression, and expanding police powers to search, seize, and sell the property of its citizens...THAT'S okay with the neocon crowd. But as soon as the government wants to provide a free meal, a cheap loan, or an adequate rental apartment to the neediest of its citizens,--why THAT'S when neocons want to shrink the government!

The neocon ideology isn't wrongheaded, it's nonexistent. It's just a few cheap, hypocritical slogans used to mask their love of war and death, and their hatred of normal human beings.

Posted at January 14, 2008 4:22 PM in response to Thinking Like an Elephant

"Edwards says you can't work with these people, you must fight them."

Yes, a sophisticated thinker, Edwards. This is bullshit. All industries, interest groups, and lobbyists are not created equal. By what justification do you make rules against, say, oil company lobbyists and not have the same rules apply to, say, environmental groups, or alternative energy companies?

This idea that business is evil and all lobbyists are bad is ridiculous. Edwards is seriously demagoguing this issue. Lobbyists serve a very useful function. Industry is complex and so is legislation. Explanations of the impact of legislation on industry is highly important. What they SHOULDN'T be doing is handing out big bucks jobs, gifts, and other goodies to legislators or family members. What's needed is a serious revision of the COI rules. No jobs or gifts from industry for 10 years after leaving Congress would get some attention.

But all Edwards has is, "you have to fight them" rhetoric. What are his proposals? It's really kind of pathetic, especially coming from a guy who promised his constituents in 1998 that he would "vote with Jesse [Helms] more often than not."

Posted at January 7, 2008 10:48 AM in response to Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?

Demers is not a federal lobbyist, which is plenty of reason, in the context of a presidential campaign, for Obama to deny that he is "a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry."

Demers registered as a lobbyist with the state of New Hampshire on Dec. 28, 2007. It'
s unclear how long he's been representing PHRMA and Pfizer, but it could certainly be a recent development.

The list of his clients:

USTPA
6 HIGH RIDGE PARK BLDG A
STAMPFORD,CT 06905-
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF NH
25 NASHUA RD BOX 17
LONDONDERRY,NH 03053-
FEDEX
942 S SHADY GROVE RD
MEMPHIS,TN 38120-
NORTH COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC
2 DELTA DR
CONCORD,NH 03301-
MORTGAGE BANKERS & BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NH
PO BOX 6
WEARE,NH 03281-
NH TRAIL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
POP BOX 447
CONCORD,NH 03302-
NH COALITION FOR PROSTHETICS
155 DOW STREET STE 200
MANCHESTER,NH 03101-
PHRMA
125 WASHINGTON #1
FOXBORO,MA 02035-
CANNERY CASINO RESORTS
221 N RAMPART BLVD
LES VEGAS,NV 89145-
BANK OF AMERICA
1100 KING STREET
WILMINGTON,DE 19884-
COMCAST
72 N MAIN ST STE 301
CONCORD,NH 03301-
PFIZER
235 EAST 42ND ST
NEW YORK,NY 10017-
PSNH
PO BOX 330
MANCHESTER,NH 03105-
IGT
1085 PALMS AIRPORT DR
LAS VEGAS,NV 89119-
NATIONAL CARD COALITION
72 N MAIN ST STE 301
CONCORD,NH 03301-
NH INDEPENDENT CASE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION
1361 ELM ST STE 400
MANCEHSTER,NH 03101-
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF NEW ENGLAND
78 REGIONAL DR
CONCORD,NH 03301-
NH TROOPERS ASSOCIATION
107 N STATE ST
CONCORD,NH 03301

Posted at January 7, 2008 10:34 AM in response to Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?

Larry, whose wife have you been beating?
What a typical Clintonian asshole's headline. The only question is when you will get on the long line of regretful Clinton supporters to kiss Obama's ass, hoping against hope to get on the bandwagon. You suck.

Posted at January 7, 2008 10:13 AM in response to Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?

"He ain't RFK."? How do you know? RFK wasn't RFK either. He was decried as "too political" in his initial senate run, as a crass opportunist after his post-LBJ-withdrawal campaign announcement, as a demagogue when he drew endless crowds of thousands of adoring supporters.

As for Obama's honorary NH campaign chair, is that all you got? How pathetic!

Posted at January 7, 2008 10:10 AM in response to Obama, What Drugs Are You Using?

The Times became a worthless dishrag years ago, a process begun with the ascension of Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller.

Giving Kristol a column, though, is simply an insult to their remaining readers. He's been wrong about everything (literally) and, like Friedman, writes the kind of prose you'd expect after handing Alley Oop a typewriter. This, plus the fact that his entire career is based on nepotism, kind of makes him a perfect choice for the withered, menopausal, "Gray Lady."

Posted at January 6, 2008 2:32 PM in response to Arthur Sulzberger's Cracked Kristol Ball

I find Larry's argument rather spurious. Truman's foreign policy was hardly the stuff of legend. He laid the groundwork for the entire Cold War, much of it pointless, not to mention the bloody quagmire in Korea.

As for Clinton, Somalia was Bush's mess, not his. And let's not forget that NOT ONE AMERICAN SERVICE PERSON was killed in combat while Clinton was president.

It's always possible to quibble over appointments or nitpick strategies. Hillary's lack of judgment has been manifest over the years, from her bungling of the health care portfolio to her votes "for the war in Iraq" and for naming the Iranian military a terrorist organization. Are we supposed to prefer someone with a track record of significant mistakes to a brilliant newcomer whose decisions, while few in number, have so far been quite sound?

Posted at January 2, 2008 8:23 AM in response to No Time for Amateurs