19 comments

• 

  al Sharpton

  1 year ago

  Delegates they should of done away with them. Since they are in effect they should be able to vote any way they want accorrding to party rules.
  
  Caucus are a stupid Democrat thing also. If they did not exist such as the Republican winner takes all delegates. Hillary would of already won by a landslide.
  reply
• 

  al Sharpton

  1 year ago

  Democrats wanted the Suer Delegates but they should of done away with them. Since they are in effect they should be able to vote any way they want accorrding to party rules.
  
  Caucus are a stupid Democrat thing also. If they did not exist such as the Republican winner takes all delegates. Hillary would of already won by a landslide.
  reply
• 

  sibby

  1 year ago

  Very interesting comparison and analysis of a political tactic. I am a registered Republican but my positions make me more of a Libertarian. After things settled with the current candidates I supported Obama mostly because of the atmosphere of optimism. Now after the reverend Wright controversy I am afraid of the ties to Jesse Jackson, Farrakan and the anti Italian, anti Israeli, and anti white hateful atmosphere that has been rightly shown to the public. Where will I go now, certainly not "I wanted to join the Marines" "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary" "gee thanks for that money your giving me of my earnings that I never invested in"
  back to an uninspiring John McCain and wait another four years for the candidate I can really get behind.
  reply
• 

  George Frink

  1 year ago

  Excellent analysis of Hillary Rodham Clinton's strategies. He willingness to engage in such strategies has earned her the distrust of a substantial and growing portion of the electorate.
  Regarding caucuses, had caucuses not existed, Barack Obama would not have invested time, energy and resources in them. He would have invested those resources in the approach to delegate selection that did exist.
  Given the downward trajectory of Ms. Clinton's approval ratings and other outcomes, it is reasonable to argue that the outcome would have been essentially the same. She was doomed by her personality, not caucuses.
  If through some fluke she still wins the Democratic nomination, her untrustworthiness will prevent even McCain's absent-mindedness from keeping him out of the oval office.
  At this point, the Democratic Party might be better off to run that fabled yellow dog for president than to offer Ms. Clinton to the voting public.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  sibby,
  
  I would urge you to look more carefully at the Reverend Wright statements and most particularly to take them in full context. He is no more anti-Israeli than Hagee is. I understand how all of the spin around him can suggest negatives, but I'd also say that unless those negatives can be proven and not insinuated, it's worth keeping an open mind.
  
  George,
  
  If I'm faced with the choice of a compulsive liar or an absent-minded clueless guy, it'll be tough for me, too. I'm still a believer in truth being more powerful than lies and innuendo, but I'd like to see some truth-telling on the part of the cable folks too.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  PS to everyone,
  
  Hillary Clinton's allegation that Obama lied about being a professor has also been proven false, too. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
  reply
• 

  dion

  1 year ago

  Would you prefer a honest person in the office or the person who ducked gun fire in the office.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  dion,
  
  I'll take the honest one. :)
  reply
• 

  HIGHLAND D.

  1 year ago

  IS THAT REALLY AL SHARPTON WRITING THOSE QUIPS. WHOEVER WROTE THEM NEEDS TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL FOR SPELLING, WRITING ETC. COULD BE SHARPTON THOUGH, HE'S A SELL OUT.
  reply
• 

  samtheman

  1 year ago

  Al Sharpton: What does "would of" mean?
  
  I think it means "would've"... which is a contraction of "would have" (look up "contraction" if you don't know what that means, you dolt) There is no such phrase as "would of"!!!
  reply
• 

  samtheman

  1 year ago

  Al Sharpton: What could "would of" possibly mean?
  
  I think it means "would've"... which is a contraction of "would have" (look up "contraction" if you don't know what that means, you dolt) There is no such phrase as "would of"!!!
  reply
• 

  Mick

  1 year ago

  Oh, for heaven's sake. What a noise about nothing. Especially when the media and practically everyone else as a result of bad education carefully say "I" when it should be "me". As in, "They gave George and I a dinner." You would never say, "They gave I a dinner" but somehow adding another person changes basic grammar. Not. Or TV announcers pronouncing Colorado as if all four vowels have the same pronunciation. Same with Halloween, which is now pronounced with a Latin "a" as in Hollow, although one would never say All Hollows Day. Or, "Like I say," for god's sake. They can't get anything right, but no one calls them on it, perhaps because they don't know the difference.
  
  In today's world, thought, such minor issues need to be left for later, when maybe humanity won't survive the decade, when billions go hungry and/or sick, when male violence is amok across the face of the earth and no one even puts a name to it (see: school violence, gun violence, teen violence, marketplace violence, anything in fact except the obvious: male violence).
  reply
• 

  samtheman

  1 year ago

  Yeah, there are lots of things like that... one is, "I could care less," which doesn't really make sense; it should be, "I couldn't care less." Does anyone really care? Probably not... Of course, there are much greater and vital issues that need the world's attention, and you're certainly right that this is not going to change the world...
  
  But I don't really consider it a "noise about nothing." The less people care about grammar and spelling, the poorer we become as a society. The depth of thought needed to create meaningful communication, and the resulting understanding that comes with it, is lost, and much of the expressive power of language continues to be diminished.
  
  This has been going on for decades, of course. As a society, we no longer speak or write very well. What does that say about us, and the abilities we have lost?
  
  So occasionally, I think it's important for someone to say something, even if it's considered by some as "noise about nothing." Some of us, who have been saddened to observe the steady deterioration of our society's language skills, just don't feel that way.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  How did a discussion around smearing candidates end up being a debate over grammar? I'm a bit of a spelling and grammar nut myself, but not to the extent of caring if someone writes the perfectly composed comment. How about moving back to the topic?
  reply
• 

  Rose

  1 year ago

  You got it so wrong. First, Link TV is a great channel - browse their programming guide. Friends and supporters (who let their faces be on the Link TV site, asking for support for the channel) include Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and Dave Mathews - wow, what a bunch of evil anti-Obamaites! Second, I know David Michaelis of link TV. He lives in San Francisco, and the link you provided to David Michaelis, the "hefty contributor" to Clinton, shows TWO DIFFERENT David Michaelis's, one in DC and one in New York! Wow get yer facts straight
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  Rose, the more I dig, the more the road leads back to Clinton. If you can supply a link that shows me wrong I'll gladly correct what I said. Haven't found it yet, though.
  reply
• 

  Rose

  1 year ago

  Karoli,
  
  I used the very complicated journalist technique of googling "David Michaelis", and got this, about the real David Michaelis, on a blog called Intrepid Liberal Journal. This is him, his photo and bio:
  
  http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2006...
  
  Then I clicked the link YOU provided above, called "hefty contributor" and performed another trick only journalists know about - I SCROLLED DOWN the page, and found the contribution details. These may or may not be one person who moved from DC to NY, but not our David of SF; as a self-described self-employed writer he/them cant work for Link TV. Oh right, maybe he was lying to hide his "hefty contributions" to Clinton, since hes probably really embarrassed that as a democrat, he gave $8000 over 2 years (and he gave $1000 to Evan Bayh).
  
  I ask you if it makes sense to conduct sloppy investigations, and jump to paranoid conclusions, not even about McCAIN but about a fellow democrat? I hope anyone who takes you seriously stops reading this blog unless you apologize for the mistakes you have made.
  
  Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount
  
  Michaelis, David Self/Writer $2,000 08/21/2006 PHILL PAC
  WASHINGTON, DC 20007
  MICHAELIS, DAVID SELF-EMPLOYED/WRITER $1,000 05/19/2006 NEW YORK, NY 10024 WHITEHOUSE 06 - Democrat
  MICHAELIS, DAVID SELF-EMPLOYED/WRITER $1,000 03/06/2006
  NEW YORK, NY 10024 WHITEHOUSE 06 - Democrat
  MICHAELIS, DAVID SELF-EMPLOYED/WRITER $1,000 03/06/2006
  NEW YORK, NY 10024 WHITEHOUSE 06 - Democrat
  MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $1,000 12/27/2005
  NEW YORK, NY 10024 EVAN BAYH COMMITTEE - Democrat
  MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $1,900 09/13/2005
  WASHINGTON, DC 20007 FRIENDS OF HILLARY - Democrat
  MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $2,000 08/16/2005
  WASHINGTON, DC 20007 FRIENDS OF HILLARY - Democrat
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  1 year ago

  Rose,
  
  Sarcasm aside, compare the photo on the blog you linked (which I also saw) with the photo on his most recent resume here and the David Michaelis blog here. The contribution dates dovetail quite nicely with his transition from writer/producer to board member at Link TV, because he is would now be precluded from making political contributions in the 2008 election cycle by virtue of his service on a 501(c)(3) organization.
  
  The pictures prove they are the same person, and the blog is further proof.
  
  This isn't new in politics. Surrogates in the media and press do this all the time, and yeah, fellow Democrats do it to fellow Democrats because somehow they can push it all down when it's said and done and kiss and make up.
  
  You are right -- a little investigation and Google work comes in handy. I did mine, and at this point I'd say the one who should apologize is YOU, not me.
  reply
• 

  Rose

  1 year ago

  Oh yeah I forgot a couple things:
  
  - David is not an American. With your profound investigative skills, you might find that non-Americans cant make political contributions.
  - He is Israeli. Lest this spin your paranoid wheels, he is a long-time member of Peace Now. The post I sent you to describes a film he made with his Palestinian colleague.
  - He is an ardent supporter of Barack Obama (althuogh he cant vote, as he is not an American). I can vote and did, for Obama.
  - David is very amused and flattered that you think he is so important.
  reply