Plus Susie, Krugman just wrote the worst is over for the economy. Since he is always wrong (but never uncertain) now you just may get that depression you have been wishing for.

(I realize that I am out of line here in expressing ambivalence, as apparently the expectation is that people are supposed to belong clearly to the category Us or Them.)

Day late and a dollar short. She supported this effing war insistently for years, and only allowed that maybe it was kinda sorta a mistake when it became politically necessary to do so, to maintain positioning in the Dem primary race. Others here have pointed out this same thing, in addition to her current stance on issues like bombing Iran “if they launched a nuclear attack on Israel”. WTF???? Her answer about having the power to obliterate Iran in retalliation might at least not be completely nonsensical if Iran actually … HAD nuclear weapons! Which they don’t. But Hill’s still on the warmonger track fundamentally.

If she’s still, even now, so ready to off hundreds of thouands of innocent people so cavalierly, then I don’t give a shit if she’s feminist or not - she ain’t HUMANIST, which is a bigger deal to me. She wouldn’t really do it? She already voted for just this, in Iraq, and supported it right along. When the chips were down and the money was on the table, HRC mortgaged all principle and allied herself with the darkest of dark sides, in the persons of Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush. And she’s still talking that talk. She’ll do it again. She’s better than “Hundred Years McCain” … but really, this is no minor gaff on her part, and it’s ongoing.

Sarcasm and ridicule– there’s that unity thing again. Actually, I don’t think that I personally have engaged in any bullshit that needs to be called out. I do support Clinton for feminist reasons, but I haven’t engaged in the kinds of name-calling that you accuse me of. (Or by “you” do you just mean anyone who shows a hint of support for Clinton, and therefore must agree with what every other Clinton supporter anywhere has said?) I do think that sexism has been quite present in this campaign, though I also clearly acknowledged in my prior post that there are plenty of non-sexism-related reasons to support or oppose either candidate.

I think part of the problem is that you are lumping together different kinds of people who have said different kinds of things, and painting them all with one brush (a nasty sarcastic brush at that).

Once again: unity? You are alienating feminists whom (one would think) you would want to rally to your candidate’s side in November.

there is such a thing as crying “wolf” and there has been a great deal of that where hrc and sexism are concerned.

and, if you want to do that, you better not be surprised when people– who will be perfectly fine with voting for hrc if she fairly wins the primary– call you on the bullshit with a nice healthy dose of sarcasm and ridicule.

now, I simply must get a latte and tend to my arugula garden.

where did I put that williams-sonoma catalog???!?!?!?

PS
Rocky is a Pansy!

PPS
Obama has no balls!!!

PPPS
Obama’s mother wasn’t really “single”!!!!

“Because claims of misogyny are to be mocked!” Actually, they can be if they are made in bad faith or in a ridiculous manner.

Fair enough. But when steveeboy was mocking claims of misogyny, he wasn’t responding to any particular claim, he was just spouting off in general against Clinton supporters. That kind of mocking just pisses off people who could be natural allies.

Frankly, I think a lot of men just don’t really understand how alienating and infuriating this election cycle and its coverage has been for those of us who consider ourselves to be progressive feminists. Please take seriously the very real claims that sexism has been blatant, even among so-called progressives, during this election. Of course, there are many reasons to like or not like either candidate that have nothing to do with sexism. However, let’s not deny that sexism is real, it has been a factor in this campaign (though surely not the only factor), and it rightfully pisses many women off (even nice middle-aged ladies like me, who have been socialized to dutifully suppress our anger– so unladylike). No, I’m not accusing you personally of anything– I’m just explaining why I responded to steveeboy’s snark in the way that I did.

What exactly is your point here?

I love how all of you working class hard scrabble salt of the earth types get so worked up on election days!

Or here?

Gotta love that unity! Because claims of misogyny are to be mocked! So are hard-scrabble salt-of-the-earth people! Let’s all mock each other some more! That’s really going to bring us together to defeat McCain!

Clinton did say that her vote for the war was a mistake. At the debate in Cleveland, when asked what vote she would take back if she could, she cited that vote in particular and said it was a mistake. (Obama cited his vote on the Terry Schiavo matter as the vote he would take back.)

I realize that this way of saying she was wrong is not as convincing as Edwards’ way of saying he was wrong. Perhaps she’s just saying it now because it’s convenient. However, it’s incorrect to say that she never admitted she was wrong about this vote.

that way as the price at the pump goes up the government gets a bigger and bigger share.

it’s time to deal with this issue instead of relying on bullshit pandering like “holidays”

Also, its funny, but it seems as though the hrc bots are distorting obama’s position on nukes and coal. Saw him on russert this weekend and he gave a far more nuanced answer on those topics.

and hrc is running around talking lots about “change” too so I guess she is pandering to the so-called “creative class”
as well???

meanwhile…

it’s LATTE TIME!!!!

It would be great if an oil-company profits tax were passed. How about using the money to help pay for the Iraq war? Not enough? Okay, then how about veterans benefits? But unfortunately, right in the middle of an election campaign is not the time to do this.

And that “in one pocket, out the other” stuff is just pointless. Why bother, if there’s no benefit to consumers?

Now, IF the candidates REALLY wanted to deal with gas prices, they should start immediate talks with Venezuela to see if they can ship over some already-refined gasoline.

But that would mean getting cozy with that LatinoFascistCommie Hugo Chavez, and probably giving him a big hug and sloppy kiss in public. John McCain has some real experience getting cozy with dictators, so should be the one that shows real leadership on this issue.

http://www.charlotte.com/290/story/611115-a611112-t2.html

as noted, maybe if she ever apologized for the war vote and admitted she was wrong instead of lying about it she would be forgiven.

I love how all of you working class hard scrabble salt of the earth types get so worked up on election days!

makes me want to have another latte…

- Pandering to people with proposals known to be impossible to deliver on.

- Proclaiming that an unprecedented alignment of experts agreeing on an issue is irrelevant and that the politician’s pandering to his/her base is the more “real” solution.

Gawd, haven’t we had ENOUGH of that crap for the last 7 years? Why in the world is Clinton doing this grotesque Cheney/Bush imitation and why would seemingly intelligent beings claim to support this idiocy?

i never forgave kerry for his war vote. but when faced with the choice of kerry or bush, i supported kerry. just as i will support clinton against mccain if she ends up with the nomination. you might also remember that kerry had almost no progressive support during the primary precisely because of his war vote.

as for edwards, frankly, his war vote is why i did not support him either. although, i ranked him much higher than clinton because of his extremely good apology that he published in the new york times. i give him a lot of credit for that, and likewise the fact that clinton acted so differently is something i hold against her.

forgave someone for the war vote??? maybe after they acknowledged they were wrong…and when they don’t go around threatening to obliterate civilizations…

Amazing how “progressives” forgave Kerry for his war vote, and lavish praise on Edwards despite his, yet continue to pillory Clinton. What’s different about that one politician? Hmmmmm…

I am the master of misogyny, I just suck down lattes and make fun of poor oppressed former first lady senators that have made $109 million since 2001 the whole way!

signed,

a not rich, not real pretty, guy that drives 42 miles to work and back each day in his 1986 toyota corolla, Obama supporter

PS
“people who aren’t as rich and pretty as the ideal voter Obama fans see in their heads”

boy, I sure wish susie would turn some of that psychoanalysis on her fellow travelers.

there are some real issues there.

It’s a good thing Krugman isn’t a Clinton partisan or anything, or one might think he was being completely disingenuous.

Oh wait. He is a rabid Clinton partisan. Never mind.

Beyong that, Hillary’s vote to go to war (… but if I knew then what I know now …”) was the ultimate pander. Puhleez. I friggin’ knew then what she knows now, and so did a lot of people. It was clearly known at the time that the Bushies were lying and hankering to invade Iraq. Hill was complicit and enabled it. Now THAT’s pandering!!!

Like Obama won’t have to deal with a Congress that is composed of people who must deal with politics as they are, every 2-6 years? An opposition party that has acted like a feral dog since the 1990s? People in the permanent shadow government who want to drown government in a bathtub, and with NOLA, damn near succeeded?

Oh, it’s pandering when it’s aimed at people who aren’t as rich and pretty as the ideal voter Obama fans see in their heads. Right….

“Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.”

And to quote him further:

“The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.”

In other words, he says explicitly that consumers do NOT benefit from the Clinton cut. And that the tax cut money essentially goes to the oil companies (and is maybe recouped by the govt. through a new tax on the companies … riiiight …). Krugman is now misrepresenting his own prior statements in his column.

Not to mention that there’s no way in hell either the gas tax or the excess profits tax gets passed (Hillary wants to show leadership, let’s see her push THAT mofo through congress! ^_^) This is all kind of quibling, and not a major deal, but Hillary’s gas tax cut is most definitely just political pandering, and of no real benefit to consumers.