dagblog - Comments for "Hillary thru the Looking Glass"

In a contrary sense, it's

Oxy Mora — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:25:18 +0000

In reply to Hillary thru the Looking Glass

In a contrary sense, it's more helpful to Hillary's campaign to air an issue like this now rather than later.

What I find interesting, if one can entertain any argument about what NYT should print, is the op-ed by the kook governor of Louisiana. Perhaps the NYT has a policy of "it's so bad, it's good".

He invested in a chalk

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:10:45 +0000

In reply to Damnit, Q seems less cynical

He invested in a chalk factory. He's trying to suck us in.

Damnit, Q seems less cynical

Verified Atheist — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:48:02 +0000

In reply to Well... we're still 20 months

Dammit, Q seems less cynical than I. How did that happen?

Well... we're still 20 months

Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:23:36 +0000

In reply to Hillary will be about the

Well... we're still 20 months out from the election. Lots of time. And just because we got conned last time doesn't mean we will again, right? Right? Ummmm riiiiiiiiiiiight?

And actually, I do have instructions! Oh how useful, I hear you say! Oh my, what a valuable gift! Why, yes, Oceankat. And here it is.

Go read up a bit on the 2011 Canadian Federal Election. Because, it was actually one for the ages. My guys, the traditional 3rd party, went from 36 seats to 103. It was a genuinely amazing campaign, run by a genuinely amazing man, and a bit of an old friend of mine, Jack Layton. He and his Chinese-Canadian wife had both fought and beaten cancer, he ran an amazing campaign (not all that dissimilar to what one might expect from an Elizabeth Warren), he exploded in the polls and almost won what would have been a shocking, and completely unforeseen victory for those who want real change. I won't comment too much on the degree of electoral corruption there was in Canada, other than to say it was certainly unprecedented in recent decades, and surprisingly involved enormous entries into ethnic and immigrant communities which the Tories had, until recently, always despised and ignored.

Anyway, Layton campaigned while secretly fighting cancer, which took his life just over 3 months later. He has become a beloved National figure since, and went out with the following words, which were very.... Jack. Not perfect, just Jack:

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

This was how people memorialized him at Toronto City Hall, his home for many years. With chalked notes.... everywhere. A temporary thing, but the kindof thing he would like.

I donno what the right answer is Oceankat. I just suspect it's one that doesn't begin with, "Of course we need something better."

The criticism presented by

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:57:28 +0000

In reply to You're making inept

The criticism presented by the NYT article, as I understand it, is that the Clintons inappropriately accepted money from people trying to influence the State Department. That criticism strikes me as newsworthy, credible...and apt. ;)

I understand that the book goes further in its insinuations, if not outright accusations, and I do think the Times article should have been more critical of that.

I actually fuss over these

ocean-kat — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:24:32 +0000

In reply to I think you meant "inapt"

I actually fuss over these little comments more than I think is necessary. My spelling is atrocious and I go to Dictionary.com several times in every comment to get it right. I check the thesaurus often to get just the right word to convey the nuance I want. I often wonder why I'm spending the time when no one notices or cares much about these comments. I was unhappy with "inept" and I pondered it for a minute before I decided not to look for a clearer word. Close enough for jazz I told myself. So of course someone did notice and pointed it out. ~~dammit~~ I mean thanks for the correction, you're right.

I think you meant "inapt"

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:00:12 +0000

In reply to You're making inept

I think you meant "inapt" (less of a fighting word) but could be wrong.

Hillary will be about the

ocean-kat — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:11:39 +0000

In reply to Gah, kill me now. I'm not

Hillary will be about the same as Obama. It's true we need something better. We needed something better than Obama. I don't think anyone has any illusions this time. 20,000 people are not going to go to a Hillary speech and weep enough tears to make a desert bloom. People aren't going to be shouting, "I love you" before they faint at her feet.

Of course we need something better. And of course democrats are going to defend her because she's the best we can get this time. I'm not trying to stop the shit from hitting the fan. I'm just hoping to slow the fan down so that when the shit hits it it's slow enough we have some hope of cleaning up the mess.

But I'm willing to take instruction. I'll do exactly what you did in 2011 to get a Prime Minister with bold and serious policy solutions to confront the problems we face.

Since there is no smoking gun

rmrd0000 — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 04:44:16 +0000

In reply to So if the NYT cannot prove

Since there is no smoking gun and the source came out of the GOP, it does make the NYT appear gullible. I mentioned Judith Miler. The NYT also inaccurately reported that ACORN offices in several cities facilitated prostitution. Congress shut off funding to ACORN and the organization folded. TheTimes operates as dupes. They should make clear from the outset that there is no evidence of wrong doing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-atlas/acorn-vindicated-of-wrong_b_612...

You're making inept

ocean-kat — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 04:31:34 +0000

In reply to So if the NYT cannot prove

You're making inept comparisons. If some liberal author looked at an oil field purchase by Koch approved by Walker and discovered a Koch donation to his campaign and claimed it was a pay off it should be looked at, investigated, and the results reported. If the investigation turned up information that since it was close to Lake Ontario an interstate agency of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the states the border the lake, had to approve it as well that should be reported too. And since Canada also borders Lake Ontario they also had to approve. And the EPA had to approve. If it turned out that 9 separate government agencies 8 of which Walker had no influence over approved this deal that should be reported. And further investigation showed the Walker wasn't even involved in Wisconsin's approval of the deal, it was handled by a mid level bureaucrat who went on the record saying Walker never contacted him to discuss the deal.

Well yeah, I think the story clearly is Dumb Ass Liberal makes unsubstantiated accusation against Walker. Accusation turns out to be untrue. And that's the argument I'd make here if someone asked me. But you're right, because Walker is a republican if no one asked me I might just keep my mouth shut.

Have you been following the story? It looks clear to me the story is Right wing nut job makes unsubstantiated accusation against Hillary. Accusation turns out to be untrue.