Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
...at hasty police who would not wait to assemble a decent case (and sure, it might have taken a while, but there's no statute of limitations on murder), and who went to court half-arsed expecting to get by on simple public outrage (in short: trusting the jury to be a lynchmob rather than decent citizens who took the law and justice seriously),
that's your opinion. you have no evidence for any of that.
-
could we have a fuller context for Clark's comments?
-
Obama has succeeded because American's want 'change' ie change from politics-as-usual.
It's certainly a large part of his appeal and many other politicians have marketed themsleves in the same way - the Outsider who'll change Washington.
But "Americans"? - with Obama getting 0.7% more than HRC of the Democrat voter participation in the primaries that might read better as "some, and not a majority, of Americans".
It may be a winning strategy come Nov, it worked for Reagan and Bill Clinton, but those big crowds don't necessarily mean all that much.
There's a great fervor amongst Obama supporters - but that's restricted to his supporters. He seems to be offering his supporters Redemption - we Amerians have sinned and Obama being fresh and new seems to offer that redemption. But it's a message that might not have a broader appeal.
-
The universe may well have run out of energy (or 'exergy', to be technically correct) by the time I finish.
Is exergy just a form of special pleading? The uinverse might evolve thermodynamically in a way that doesn't suite us but what about all that dark matter - it might suite them.
-
Bugger, we finally agree on something Neil.
I'll drown my sorrows with extra chardonnay his evening.
-
GW Bush, uniting liberals since, well ... ever, really.
It was just the right application of CRC that my sluggish Rage-O-Meter needed to send it flying up to 11.
Apart from the utter unfairness to Obama the whole debate about the Middle East is hard enough without crap like that.
-
And allowing an invalid primary to stand is relevant to this exactly how?
It's not really invalid as such. The non-seating is a punishment that can and will be appealed. That's what the rules allow. It's also a punishment that went against the rules - the rules were to have only 50% not seated.
But it's only because the race is so close that this has become a significant issue.
Prepare another snide comment about your flat-lining outrate meter, because I think it's pretty sad.
After Hillary getting so much heat for the whisky drinking I really couldn't resist that one. Obama has spent the last two weeks drinking beer and playing pool in working class bars - but that's not the image he wants to send to Christians.
Is Hillary having to over-compensate to working class men for being a woman so different from Obama having to over-compensate on the issue of religion? You and Russell were arguing that Hillary's repackaging herself for particular audiences was just outrageous. Whereas I was arguing that it’s the sort of thing every politician has to do.
But isn't Bush a a complete bastard.
-
...and what else do you think Clinton was alluding to when he accused Obama of engaging in a "Republican strategy"
I agree, that is exactly what he's alluding to. It might be an unfair comparison but it's more than unfair to the voters of Florida for Obama to delay a solution either until Clinton doesn't get an advantage or til it doesn't matter.
With the RCP Florida average showing Obama losing to McCain by 9% but Clinton beating McCain by 1.7% it's no wonder the Clintons are talking very loudly about this.
But this is a bit a laugh. I don't know how that rates on the whisky drinking scale.
-
One of the TalkLeft bloggers and a number of their readers advanced the view that Clinton should get the only delegates from MI, and Obama should get none. That's kinda crazy ...
That indeed would be crazy. I think some of them had a technical issue (they seem to be lawyers afterall) with Obama getting all of the not commited votes - when an unknown number were for other candidates, especially Edwards. (but as for Obama - why did he leave his name on the Florida ballot?)
It's hard to know what to think about the timing of Edwards's endorsement - he had to do it sometime so over-analysing is a definite risk - but it's hard not to see it as a (sucessful) response to Clinton's arguments about the working class vote and the Michigan/Florida stand-off.
Getting Edwards signals reaching out to working class voters and since Edawards got 15% of the vote in Florida his delegates are now free to go for Obama if, as they should, the delegates are counted. (Similarly with Michigan). So Clinton's Florida advanyage would be greatly reduced.
That's just speculation on their motives but those consequences I think hold.
It might have been that Elizabeth Edwards finally got Obama to agree to adopt Hillary's helath care policies - which she prefered. (That's a joke).
-
I understand he did so to honour an agreement he made with the DNC.
no he didn't. It was a deal with parts of the Michigan party machine he wanted to curry favour with. Again this doesn't rate highly on my Rage-O-Meter.