Log in

No account? Create an account

March 10th, 2008


I asked Kristy, and, alike to me, she has no idea what ‘Obamamania’ refers to.

Now, Clintophobia, that is what Chris Matthews and others suffer from.
... although to report it that way would be sexist, no?

See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/11748/6707/563/473353

Actually almost keeping pace with Obama may be good enough for the running-mate position, and so it would have been a successful week for Clinton. (Reporting it that way would be non-sexist, eh? No such luck, because Clinton ends up only as VP.)

Oh, and damn, as I was typing this Thom Hartmann was on again with the ‘no hitting below the belt or you’ll have to get divorced’ theory of relationship counseling and it’s application to an Obama-Clinton pairing. That just makes my blood boil, because spouses hit below the belt constantly, because they have the motive, the opportunity, and the means. Just let me observe the Hartmanns for a while; they likely don’t even realize they are doing it. Thom Hartmann isn't very observant IMO, he has his head too buried in books and Federalist papers.

(‘Trust’ and ‘communications’ also tend to be nonsense. The ‘communications’ aspect is extremely wrong, almost palpably wrong, because spouses tend to communicate so well that they don’t have to say a word. It’s just that the message is often ‘Oh, just shut up, will you already!’ and then they both comply or they don’t comply, but the message is there and it is understood. And, come to think of it, that message likely is hitting below the belt.)

Randi Rhodes’s new theory

In addition to declaring herself always right about issues that matter, today Randi Rhodes has given us the following theory:

* Bill Clinton desperately wants a divorce.

* If Hillary Clinton is elected president, then he won't get a divorce until 2012.

* Therefore, and to preserve his own pre-eminence, Bill Clinton wants Hillary Clinton to lose.

* Consequently ... ?

It’s hard for me to find any evidence for this theory, and it’s also hard to figure out what predictions it makes. :)

Latest Month

June 2016


  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:22
    In case it matters, the most recent confirmed lahar is about 500 years ago, but there were mixed reports of eruptions in the late 1800s.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:20
    Pretty low until you jinxed them.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:01
    What would you estimate the odds to be of it happening in the next 200 years?
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:22
    Thinking about it further, I think I now understand. You're saying the WSJ is being antisemitic, not the people they're quoting.

    I don't think they'd listen to it coming from us, but a…
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:09
    I'm not noticing it either. Seems to me they *are* being assholes to Jews, but only moreso than anybody else if we happen to be in the way. I think that's gneral-purpose assholery, not…
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel