Sarah Palin: Perfect Choice For Hillary Supporters....NOT!

Speaking of Rove, the Democrats need to make this into a commercial:



http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/29/vp-picks-karl-rove-swings-and-misses-big-time/



On August 10, Karl Rove went on "Face The Nation" to argue that Senator Obama would make an "intensely political choice" for Vice President without regard for the "responsibilities of president." At the time, Rove believed Obama would choose Tim Kaine, and argued against him by saying this:



"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he"s been a governor for three years, he"s been able but undistinguished. I don"t think people could really name a big, important thing that he"s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it"s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It"s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I"m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Scott McClellan To Obama: Don't Investigate Us

And that's what will happen. It'll all be, oh, we've got to move forward, this will cause bad feelings, and the criminals will get away with their crimes. It's a kind of "gentlemen's agreement" - Bill Clinton did it too, and Lord knows he had a lot less to investigate. As someone said, THAT'S why Congress should have done it. And what they SHOULD do next year is take it out of the President's hands and appoint a commission, complete with broad subpoena powers, and please don't put someone like Condi's buddy Zelikow in charge of the information flow like w/ the 9/11 commission.
About Scott McClellan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Shroud Of Turin Stirs A New Controversy

Well, they considered starting a "Science" section and consulted the people over at scienceblogs, who, from their posts, appeared to be quite literally ROTFL(Their)AO. Not only did they point out the presence of a lot of pseudoscientific garbage on this site (fine that it's here, but not if goes into a section labeled "Science"), but also the fact that this is not a free and open forum, which is one reason I have to put my posts up on my blog, to make sure they don't "disappear."

On the story itself, I suppose Satan must have been behind the "skewing" of the dating by the fire that charred it. (Has anyone ever shown, by the way, that carbon-14 dating is ever skewed by putting the object involved through a fire? Somehow, it was "miraculously" skewed, not by 500 years or 1700, but by 1300, which just "happens" to date it to exactly the century during which it first appeared in the historical record. Amazing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dear Mr. President

Amen, Becky. His supporters and surrogates, if not Obama himself, took almost EVERY word that came out of Bill and Hillary's mouth and tried to give it a racial twist. Many of the commenters on this site actually CALLED them racists. And as far as I'm concerned saying, "they're not racists but they're willing to get down in the gutter and use race to win" is even MORE of an insult. Someone who knows better and does something anyway is worse than someone who's just ignorant, in my book.

I particularly remember his mentioning Jesse Jackson after SC - no one seemed to consider that a wonk like Bill who's got all the numbers at his fingertips might have mentioned Jackson because in '88 he got the EXACT same percentage that Obama got, and that since he doesn't SEE color, it might never have entered his mind that he would be accused of trying to Obama the "black" candidate. IMHO, the people who said or implied that Obama can ONLY be compared to white people are showing a certain degree of racism.
About Bill Clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Celeb Ad Adopts McCain Line Of Attack

I don't know - I have mixed feelings, but a lot of things about it are good. It has the advantage over McCain's ad of being, what was that word? Oh yeah. TRUE. The best thing is that it keeps showing McCain and Bush together, which is something we want to hammer home to people. It also shows him doing real "celebrity" type things, like showing up on Leno - doesn't just juxtapose him with two bimbos he's never met or any any connection with. And there's a solid message stuck there in the middle, about the McCain/lobbyist/Big Oil axis. Finally, you can't look at it in isolation - have to see it in the context of the Britney/Paris ad. It shows McCain as a hypocrite, and people tend to despise hypocrites even more than out-and-out wrongdoers.



I guess we'll have to see how it plays and what the effect is.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A couple of very interesting blogs...

...on the anthrax case. I hope that his family takes this blogger's advice and sues. And this one is by a woman who studies this stuff for a living.

(I figured I'd better add an image or this would get lost in the HuffPo comments.)

Edwards Furious With ABC Over Handling Of Interview

They do have a hobby, Gasparilla - cooking up crackpot conspiracy theories connecting Bill and Hillary Clinton to everything from the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby to this. Oh - and you thought the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD was Nero's doing? Wrong - Bill (or Hillary) Clinton traveled back in time to set it personally.

I don't belong to PUMA - I think they're deluded and a bit pathetic, and I would vote for a potted plant over John McCain - but every drop of vitriol that the Obama supporters throw Hillary's way makes me think less of him and his "new kind of politics." If his supporters are an example of it, then God save us from it. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a "sore winner."
About John Edwards
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
______

Putting this in context - the previous poster(s) was suggesting that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton has sicced the Enquirer on Edwards, seeing as how they're such nice people over there and need someone to send them out after a scurrilous story.

Leaked Clinton Camp Memos

Funny that people about whom a lot of posters on this site are absolutely gaga (Biden, Hagel) voted exactly the same, as well as John Edwards, who made a very politically calculated (if you ask me) apology and Chris Dodd. But with them, it's NEVER mentioned again. Only with Hillary is it pounded on day after day, week, after week, month after month, year after year. After Obama's FISA vote (made with the exact same rationalizations that were used in 2002, only now knowing that "taking the issue off the table before the election" DOESN'T work), maybe you guys should just shut up about the Iraq vote.
About Hillary Clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
_____

One problem with this Huffington Post "post to Blogger" feature is that if you're answering another poster's comment, yours is out of context and anyone who looks at it here is sitting there scratching his or her head and going "Huh?" The comment I was answering here was one of the usual suspects bashing Hillary for her Iraq vote.

Justice Department Subpoenas Its Former Lawyers In Civil Rights Probe

Yeah, I'll say it again even though my previous comment was censored, possibly because I DARED to point out what Harvey is saying. Their names "sound" Jewish to you, and of course that explains (to you) why they're sleazeballs.

I'll post this to Blogger since people can say pretty obviously anti-Semitic things on this site and get away with it but if you point it out your post is deleted.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
______

The following is not on the Huffington Post site. I really enjoy reading the posts and participating in the discussions, but now that they tell on your profile how many of your comments have been deleted (about 6 in the past few days for me or about 1/4 to 1/3), I'm really starting to consider abandoning it altogether, because I know that the things I've said have been relatively innocuous. Especially when I remember one (not mine, needless to say) that suggested doing to Hillary Clinton what was done to Mussolini, which was evidently just fine with the moderators, unless they were just too ignorant to realize that the person making the comment was advocating lynching - one of the things that is expressly not allowed, according to their comments policy. Ergo, they're censoring things that either the powers that be or the moderators don't like, or they're just arbitrarily not allowing certain comments. (Interestingly enough, it appears to have been deleted again.)

Incidentally, if the comment I responded to here was not implying that the people named were Jewish, I would love to know that it was implying. Here it is:

"Schlozman, Hans Von Spakovsky, and Torchinsky. Is it me or is there something that seems to be jumping off the page here?"

UPDATE (Sat. 9:24 am): Evidently it's easier to censor something than it is to allow a response and discussion on it. Just out of annoyance and for the hell of it (not because I actually thought it should be deleted), I flagged the comment above as abusive, and now I see that it's gone. I would rather they had left it there and allowed me to respond to it.