Comments on: Dinner Conversation

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:57:56 +0000

Dawn:
Perhaps you should start with my earliest comments, where I very politely questioned some of the Clinton-Worship on a site I always loved, eagerly looked forward to reading, and considered even-handed. The response? From both the site administrator and other commentators nothing but condescension, contempt, and snark. When I finally got tired of it and began responding in kind what am I accused of? Being snarky.
As for the “long-winded” part, I actually do include factual information in my responses. I don’t just say “you’re wrong”. I consider it rude and unfair - even if I’m including snark - to just say “you’re wrong.” See the exchange above which you are commenting on. I list a whole string of facts only to have scoutt respond with “you can’t support your own candidate without lying, distorting and blockinng out pieces of Obama’s platform, history and behavior. YOU’RE the ones telling us that Obama will bring us rainbows…” Ok, I’ll say it yet again - give me one example of me doing what I have been accused of doing.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:56:43 +0000

I don’t know why people like Bob don’t understand that they are Obama’s own worst enemies. (In addition to being long-winded blowhards for the most part). I read the dripping contempt for everyone who disagrees with him and the undercurrent of hatred for another democratic leader just because they are challenging someone Bob supports and I just want to run as far away from Bob’s candidate as I can. That absolutely was not the case for me at the beginning of this campaign and is just so unfortunate because it didn’t have to be this way.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:55:25 +0000

scoutt: I wish I could disagree but you’re right. I’ve posted a dozen times here promising rainbows for everybody if Obama wins. Shit, I thought I’d get away with it.
And you caught me on all that lying and distorting I’ve been so busy with. Pres. Clinton didn’t sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - I made that up. Hilary Clinton didn’t run the Health Care Task Force. I made that up. Krugman isn’t way to the left of Phil Gramm - I made that up.
You know, there was a lot of snark in my previous post. There were also a lot of….um, what’s that word again…oh yeah - facts. Your response? Liar, liar pants on fire.
You’re so right; we Obama supporters are blindly following an empty suit. That’s why my facts are met with your name-calling.
You wrote: “you can’t support your own candidate without lying, distorting and blockinng out pieces of Obama’s platform, history and behavior.” Please provide just one example of me “…lying, distorting and blocking out pieces of Obama’s platform, history and behavior.” Just one.
You wrote: “YOU’RE the ones telling us that Obama will bring us rainbows…” Ok, you weaseled your way on that one with the plural, but again, please provide just one example of me “…telling us that Obama will bring us rainbows.” Just one.
These challenges should be easy as I’m such an irrational Obamamaniac.
Thanks for playing.

By: scoutt

scoutt — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:33:42 +0000

bob,
wow. once again an obama supporter demonstrating the behavior that will unify us all. actually, the way you twist and turn to make your snarky points does show you to be a clinton hater. you can’t support your own candidate without lying, distorting and blockinng out pieces of Obama’s platform, history and behavior. YOU’RE the ones telling us that Obama will bring us rainbows while he and his supporters actually demonstrate the opposite. Take your unity hate somewhere else.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:18:36 +0000

Ok, I give. You’re right. For 8 years poor Bill Clinton had a gun held to his head and was forced to be a more conservative president then Richard Nixon. Maybe the repeal of Glass-Steagall was an ever so trivial mistake, but gosh, Clinton “…didn’t have many options under the circumstances.” Of course not, I mean, other than the option of acting presidential and, you know, leading.
And poor Hilary and the lack of respect she gets regarding her Technicolor Rainbows for Everybody! health care plan; man, I can’t sleep at night knowing it’s been criticized by mean old bloggers.
Let’s imagine a different world, a world where the Director of the Health Care Task Force had spent 1993 holding open meetings (in a democracy open government is usually considered a good thing), getting buy-in from key players, creating a workable plan and - voila! - succeeding. Would there be a mention or two of that by Team Clinton today? Susie, would that be one of the reasons you argue for Sen. Clinton for president?
So I guess if she succeeds she’s great and gets the credit. If she fails, well, it’s everybody else’s fault. If Bill Clinton repeals a banking reform passed in the wake of FDR’s first victory, a reform touted by most centrist to left wing economists ever since while conservative economists have ranted against it as vehemently as they have Social Security and the banking industry soon thereafter tanks, we can always find a rabidly pro-Clinton economist who, over dinner across from Le Ho Fooks will casually dismiss any possible linkage. Nothing to see here liberals, go back to Air America. No reason to find anything odd about a liberal economist who just happens to be one of those rational, kind, polite Clinton supporters seeing nothing wrong with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I’m sure Krugman and Phil f**king Gramm agree on most economic issues. Sure they do.
Ok, compared to Hilary Clinton Barack Obama looks like Herbert Hoover. I give. I quit. She is a God here to save us mere mortals.
And here I was naive enough to believe she was nothing more or less than a politician, someone whose proposals I could criticize as, you know, proposals with good features and bad.
Apparently I’m just another irrational Clinton-hating misogynistic Obamamaniac. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

By: votermom

votermom — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:22:31 +0000

Susie, you name-dropper you! :))))
Paul Krugman is one of the last few sane big-name bloggers.

By: Ben Keeler

Ben Keeler — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:38:29 +0000

It hurts my heart to see this Democratic party infighting. Just kidding.

By: ALISON WEIN

ALISON WEIN — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:15:35 +0000

Paul Krugman gets vicious mail because he has been viciously unfair in his treatment of Sen Obama and his ideas in his columns.
Krugman is a well respected economist - but when he became so politically biased in his coverage these past few months which BIG headlines and anti Obama rhetoric - he lost a lot of credibility. Had he concentrating on IDEAS and not personality he would not have alienating so many prior readers (myself included).

Most people realize we have to make a “u turn” in this country’s agenda and that will not get done by alienating the other party. Obama’s entire campaign has been about creating a coalition of democrats, republicans and independents to get the best ideas passed. He doesn’t claim to have ownership of all the best ideas but the ability to recognize which the best ideas are and get
the country moving in that direction.

Hillary Clinton can have the most progressive ideas in the world - but the word MANDATE is like a red flag to a bull for many people and esp for elected republicans

Maybe if Krugman could recognize we have to walk before we run and start to make the transformative changes this country needs he could allow that Sen Obama has a better chance to do this -

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:10:48 +0000

Noz, you’re putting words in my mouth. I said “why the no-mandate policy on Obama’s health care plan was such a bad idea,” not the health care policy itself. I don’t know how you got that interpretation.

actually, you’re right. i guess i just misread what you wrote. sorry

but, once again, i do think there’s good reason to not like individual mandates. if you have a mandate, you got to have a penalty for non-compliance. and penalizing people who show up at an emergency room with no insurance is a hard thing to do because they’re probably already in pretty dire straits. for all the benefits of universality, there are real minuses with getting to it through an individual mandate.

in other words, while i think clinton’s health plan is better, i also think that obama’s critique of the mandates is basically right too. i really wish that both candidates would ditch the MA model and just propose a single-payer. i know that krugman didn’t think it was politically feasible, but common wisdom also once held that voting to hold the president’s people in contempt would be a loser for the democrats. common wisdom is often wrong. we simply won’t know how a single payer plan would go down until someone actually proposes it.

By: Susie

Susie — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:34:44 +0000

Noz, you’re putting words in my mouth. I said “why the no-mandate policy on Obama’s health care plan was such a bad idea,” not the health care policy itself. I don’t know how you got that interpretation.