An ongoing, eclectic commentary on Unitarian Universalism, after retirement from active ministry--as I see it, practice it, and love it, with sidebars on life, love and the pursuit of happiness.
As I read elsewhere we are indeed poisoned by racism and sexism. Sexism is broader and racism deeper. But they're both there and both were currents that we had to dealt with.
But here's the deal. We had a closely contended election between two compelling people.
One won narrowly.
Progressives are now confronted with a challenge. Do we draw together behind Senator Obama? Or, do we abandon the field in recrimination and division to Senator McCain and that third Bush term?
Thanks, CC and James. I didn't find anything that rang true for me, but I wanted to check with credible others as well. It helps to hear your thoughts.
This article ascribes a kind of all seeing knowledge to Mr Rove. The writer contructs a web of speculation and tries to use that contstruct to demonize Mr. Rove. It is not clear to me what the writer's motivation is.
My observation is that Carl Rove is a ver smart guy but he is not as smart the author of article would have us believe.
I would question the motivation of the author and his thought processes. I see some fear and paranoia. The other poster James summed it up nicely with, "This way lies madness..."
"Even with the full compliment of election-scamming tools - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - at their disposal, the G.O.P. would be hard pressed to eclipse Clinton in November."
Actually, most of the Democrats I know believe the opposite--that Hilary would be very easy to beat because SO MANY people really don't like Hilary, even if they liked Bill. It sounds interesting enough, but it's an awful lot of work for, really, no gain that I can see. I'm good friends with a guy who works for and organizes OBama's campaign here in Denver, and I have to say that this friend of mine is not the kind of fellow who throws his lot in with a) a losing horse and b) a corrupt horse.
this sort of claims that Rove was behind Obama for President (so he could be beat) even from the time he ran for the Senate... Parts of it just might hold water if Obama wasn't an exceptional candidate. The 'faults' of Obama that are outlined are so obscure and usually aren't even his, but an associate of his... Every other politician that I know of has far worse in terms of connections and errors- certainly Clinton.
Limbaugh, Coulter, and Gingrich are all on record exhorting Republicans to support Hillary -- Limbaugh specifically asked his listeners to cross over and vote for her.
I've believed all along that the only hope the Republicans had in 2008 was a contest against Hillary. Basically everything in this article is backwards: Hillary's the one with real skeletons in the closet, supported by big money donors and PACs, and promoted by Republicans.
8 comments:
I got about a third of the way through. To me it sounds like a lot of speculation with almost no evidence.
CC
This way lies madness...
As I read elsewhere we are indeed poisoned by racism and sexism. Sexism is broader and racism deeper. But they're both there and both were currents that we had to dealt with.
But here's the deal. We had a closely contended election between two compelling people.
One won narrowly.
Progressives are now confronted with a challenge. Do we draw together behind Senator Obama? Or, do we abandon the field in recrimination and division to Senator McCain and that third Bush term?
For me the choice seems stark.
Thanks, CC and James. I didn't find anything that rang true for me, but I wanted to check with credible others as well. It helps to hear your thoughts.
This article ascribes a kind of all seeing knowledge to Mr Rove. The writer contructs a web of speculation and tries to use that contstruct to demonize Mr. Rove. It is not clear to me what the writer's motivation is.
My observation is that Carl Rove is a ver smart guy but he is not as smart the author of article would have us believe.
I would question the motivation of the author and his thought processes. I see some fear and paranoia. The other poster James summed it up nicely with, "This way lies madness..."
"Even with the full compliment of election-scamming tools - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - at their disposal, the G.O.P. would be hard pressed to eclipse Clinton in November."
Actually, most of the Democrats I know believe the opposite--that Hilary would be very easy to beat because SO MANY people really don't like Hilary, even if they liked Bill. It sounds interesting enough, but it's an awful lot of work for, really, no gain that I can see. I'm good friends with a guy who works for and organizes OBama's campaign here in Denver, and I have to say that this friend of mine is not the kind of fellow who throws his lot in with a) a losing horse and b) a corrupt horse.
this sort of claims that Rove was behind Obama for President (so he could be beat) even from the time he ran for the Senate... Parts of it just might hold water if Obama wasn't an exceptional candidate. The 'faults' of Obama that are outlined are so obscure and usually aren't even his, but an associate of his... Every other politician that I know of has far worse in terms of connections and errors- certainly Clinton.
In short. This is really grasping for something
Limbaugh, Coulter, and Gingrich are all on record exhorting Republicans to support Hillary -- Limbaugh specifically asked his listeners to cross over and vote for her.
I've believed all along that the only hope the Republicans had in 2008 was a contest against Hillary. Basically everything in this article is backwards: Hillary's the one with real skeletons in the closet, supported by big money donors and PACs, and promoted by Republicans.
Thanks, Dan, that's helpful.
Post a Comment