Comments on: Equal Time

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:44:33 +0000

Kim and sister of ye: you’ll have to forgive us poor Obamamaniacs, being so young and naive and followers of an empty suit and all. Of course, I’m not young and I remember such political lions as Tip O Neil who actually went head-on at Republican BS and made Republicans back off*. But hey, when your motto is Clinton At All Costs you’ll excuse anything with a dismissive claim of poor reading skills. Believe it or not Somerby is really easy to understand – a chore to get through as he’s execrable writer – but easy enough to understand. He – like you two – is determined to make Clinton look good no matter what and bring Obama down no matter what. Thus when Clinton co-sponsors a bill that Obama votes for you all claim there is no difference between the two actions. And I’m sure if the roles were reversed you’d be saying the exact same thing.
Sure you would.
* And before any of you go digging for an example of the Tipster playing some lesser of two evils game don’t bother. He did and I’m aware of it. He was also a true fighter who knew when to fight and when to play games. All I’ve seen from all the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate under Bush – and I include Obama in that – is second rate gamesmanship with no direct confrontation. That’s all the point I’m making.

By: sister of ye

sister of ye — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:24:43 +0000

My heavens, that’s about all the regulars on the anti-Clinton rant shift. Reading comprehension must be down. What part of “propose dumb but harmless bill to undercut even stupider constitutional amendment” don’t you “people” understand? Even Obama got it.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:08:13 +0000

SamSteveJoe et al,
Somerby was pointing out the lousy journalism of those who knocked Clinton for doing something and praised Obama for not doing that something, when in fact he did. Somerby was also trying to justify the vote as well by stating that the bill was less pernicious than the amendment, but his main critique was that prominent journalists don’t have the facts.

By: paula

paula — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:36:14 +0000

I suppose a bill about flag burning is better than a Constitutional amendment. Which was the alternative forwarded by the Republican majority. It’s important to remember the scenarios in which bills are presented.

By: Wendy Whinner

Wendy Whinner — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:32:43 +0000

It is so hilarious to see liberals enraged by the MSM bigwigs like Gail Collins. She has been faithfully carrying your water for years.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:58:56 +0000

“That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!” Always a charmer that Somerby. It was a noxious piece of legislation sponsored by a passel of Republicans who were only able to find one Democratic senator craven enough to co-sponsor, thus giving them the cover of pushing a “bipartisan” bill. Who was that one Democrat? That’s right, dumb-ass! It was Clinton.
Look, there’s no reason for anyone involved to point to this with pride. It’s a sleazy game that exists solely to get someone to vote nay and use that against them in their reelection bid. That being said, there is a pronounced difference between voting for it and co-sponsoring it.

By: Snarki, child of Loki

Snarki, child of Loki — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:18:37 +0000

Well, I hope that the flag-burning bills are just pure pander. But with the set of bozos we’ve been saddled with on the Supreme Court, who knows how long the 1st amendment will last?

I, for one, am fully in FAVOR of flag burning: Confederate flags.

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:09:37 +0000

what steveboy said. i thought the hubbub about clinton and flag burning is not that she voted for it, but that she sponsored it in the first place.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:58:47 +0000

Why doesn’t Clinton just waterski over a Great White and get it over with?

By: joe

joe — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:55:59 +0000

hrc and co now want to sue OPEC based upon our anti-trust laws. Just like the elite…when all else fails — SUE!

By: steveeboy

steveeboy — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:31:08 +0000

umm,

except if my googling is correct HRC SPONSORED the bill while Obama just voted for it–a fact I did not check so I am not sure if this is true.

So is that it?

you are left with your famous “I know hillary did this but your guy did too” defense???

Oh sorry, gotta go now, time for another latte…

did I mention that I will be shopping for organic heirloom artichokes later?

DAMN! I am so young and pretty!

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:05:40 +0000

Clinton has been shown pretty conclusively to be pandering in the worst way on this “gas tax holiday” fairy tale.

So let’s change the subject to something no one here has brought up.

So apparently the real point has been conceded?

Now we can discuss the non issue for awhile to make the losers feel better.

Yes - it is disingenuous and petty to say Clinton pandered on the flag burning vote and not say that Obama and all the others did too. They all did.

Sorry that doesn’t mean she’s NOT pandering now though.