Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
McCain would never, ever get a pass for throwing
I meant no one is giving Scaife a pass. She did an interview in which she stated her views of which they agreed on two issues - exiting quickly from Iraq and how badly the Federal govt handled hurricane Katrina. (Anyone have a problem with those 2 positions?) He says that they disagree on more than they agree. How can that be construed as giving him a pass on any past behaviour?
Scaife is looking to interview Obama, if he does it certainly wouldn't worry me.
...not V.P but not significantly sidelined.
Maybe Secretary of State (she's exaggerated her foreign policy credentials but she still does have quite a bit of experience which would be useful). The accepted wisdom is that either would have to choose a VP that would compliment their own voter attraction - and neither of them do that for each other (but who knows). But even though I think it unlikely a Clinton victory is still possible. Clinton could squeak ahead in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are counted.
I think Dean could wind up having to make the very difficult decision since his appointees to the credentials committee will have the deciding say on whether or not to seat Michigan and Florida. As Dean has been saying, some one is going to loose with 49.8% of the vote.
-
Well, Neil, I guess if McCain loses his temper and calls a (female) reporter "fucking Communist cunt", Senator Clinton will give him a pass too. It's only fair.
what are you talking about? Who's giving "him a pass"?
-
Still, at least the delightful Mr Scaife is right on board.
yes, they apparently agreed on a few issues, such as -
On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been -- "not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment."
Is this important or is this just a version of "since Huckabee supported Wright therefore Obama must be blah blah..." guilt by association argument?
-
but I'm getting sick of Obama supporters being 'demonised' as misogynistic "bullies":
you might be but that's nothing i've said.
I was talking about how Obama is playing this. He's gone for "I'll win, I can be magnanimous" instead of the alternative "stop, you're destroying the party" which runs the risk of severly annoying the just less than 50% of Dems that prefer Clnton, not to mention the 12 million voters yet to have their say.
It's a better stategy and no doubt he hopes this will dawn on the netroots at some point.
There's a few more twists and turns to go - why else would Edwards and Gore have held back their endorsements?
-
But don't the interests of her party, and the nation as a whole, come into it at some point?
Well that's why she's still running. At present neither candidate can claim to have a monoply on the interests of the party and nation. Unless there's some sort of argument that supporting Clinton is some sort of betrayal of the party and nation. There's still quite a few voters yet to have their say in this.
But Obama now doesn't have a problem with her continuing on -
My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said. "She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.
If he thinks he will still win and the evidence is that the close contest has made the Democrat party stronger then why not? The alternative is not to just demonise Clinton as a destroyer but also almost half the party membership which support her.
-
Why then is it so hard to credit China's attitude to Tibet, Sudan's to Darfur or, closer to home, Indonesia's to East Timor?
Roughan's analogy module needs some refinement.
-
I guess because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool cynical New Zealander I wasn't able to be persuaded by the unity and hope messaged that framed his speech...
It's a pity thay so much of the campaigning and the debate surrounding it has been to do with such meta issues as his unity and hope vs her experience etc.
Few people talk about such substantive issues as Obama vs Clinton's policies on performance based pay in the school system. (Obama is looking at performance based pay for teachers, Clinton at performance based pay for schools).
Kriugman has been complaining of this since the begining of the campaign. Here he is on the on the leading candidates' views on the current US economic crisis:
Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.
Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.
Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.
-
I've had case to wonder --
I can be a bit sharp and am sorry I've given the appearance of taking exception to you as a person rather than just to some of your arguments.
Scaife appeared to have changed his mind about the Clintons sometime last year - now considering he was way over the top with his vendetta against them. (Maybe his new found affection for them is just more evidence of his poor judgment, he he). So meeting with him now in the situation of a state primary has a bit of back story.
And on the subject of Hillary and her former enemies, she has over the years since her health reforms were torpedoed by various conservative politicians and insurance industry representatives got a lot of those former enemies on side. I don't expect her to be the next Pres but she has laid the ground work for much needed health reforms that Obama will find handy (once he adopts her slightly better reform plans). And presumably she'll either be Senate majority leader or in his cabinet.
-
Yes, Neil, us loony misogynistic cultists are like that.
cut it out Craig, if I thought anything of the kind I wouldn't engage with you.
i was a bit snippy (i was sleep deprived - it's going round) but after talking more generally about how there is some nutty tribal loyalty going on, on both sides, and linking to evidence that suggests that the Dems are benefiting from a close and hotly contested race, all you can say is I'm being patronising.
would a McCain administration see a substantive change in direction
hard to say, but I doubt he'd appoint some one like Bolton to the UN.
I've tried to find any great difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign affairs. They squabble semantically over when to meet the leaders of hostile countries but that seems to be about it.
-
<quote>but you don't get to have it both ways Neil.<quote>
what are you talking about? I've given up trying to undertsand your arguments. They jump all over the place eventually landing on some remark like that which makes no sense.