zed?

Jane!

dang, i walked back in from lunch and here was my little zed waiting for me! :-)

I believe this because Karl Rove says so.

Brain bleach!

But– but– he’s a genius!

I’m worried, people…

If Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

Yep.

Jane Sez!

EPU’d…Re-post??

Are cracks appearing in the MSM?

SECAUCUS, N.J., August 20, 2007 – MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann will bring his unique take on the day’s events, from politics to pop culture, to a primetime network audience this Sunday night. A special edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” will air on Sunday, August 26th at 7 p.m. ET/6 p.m. CT on NBC, leading into the network’s “Sunday Night Football” pre-season NFL matchup between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Pittsburgh Steelers, live at 8 p.m. ET. Olbermann is joining the network’s “Football Night in America” studio team this season. The special edition of “Countdown” will be broadcast live from MSNBC’s studios.

www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/n….._65388.asp

If they decided to have Countdown before every Sunday Nite football…the wing-nuts’ heads will explode..it just might push O’Reilly into complete insanity.

Was the republican victory in the 2004 presidential race more attributable to Rover’s alleged “genius” or John Kerry’s failure to respond to the Swift Boat Liars in a timely and complete manner, thus allowing a draft-dodging fat man and his deserting sidekick to malign him without response?

Methinks it was the latter, but then WTF do I know?

Maybe the machines did not work the way rove wanted them to.

If Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

I sure hope you’re right. I think KKKarl wants Hillary to run against because of her high negatives and the fact that she may be the one thing that will get their base stirred to action.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

can’t agree with you on that one - classic rovian reverse psychology.

(or was that tongue-in-cheek?)

dave @ 5

But– but– he’s a genius geniass!

I’m worried, people…

fixed your typo :)

oh, yeah… Hi Jane :)

Steve-AR, we watch football all day on sunday. Even at night. Aunt Betsy and my brother are huge NFL fans. Different teams.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

I agree completely.

Karl Rove got into the heads of a lot of Democrats. John Kerry and Bob Shrum in particular. Dems need to stop being afraid. Start playing our game. On issue after issue the country is with us. Be a Democrat. Be a liberal. Be a progressive. And the **** with Karl Rove.

Sorry for the OT

Public Notice

Due to my impending retirement from the subway, I will be changing my blog handle to “Astral Technician” AsTech for short.

Shortly.

“They will make gains that will ultimately be characterized by the news media as “disappointing”.”

I don’t much care what the news media thinks. Regarding the Dems failure to mount any substantive opposition to Bush policy, I am indeed disappointed.

Subway Serenade @ 18

Sorry for the OT

Public Notice

Due to my impending retirement from the subway, I will be changing my blog handle to “Astral Technician” AsTech for short.

Shortly.

cool name!

jim oconnor @ 17

Karl Rove got into the heads of a lot of Democrats. John Kerry and Bob Shrum in particular. Dems need to stop being afraid. Start playing our game. On issue after issue the country is with us. Be a Democrat. Be a liberal. Be a progressive. And the **** with Karl Rove.

Karl Rove did get George W Bush into the White House for TWO terms, that’s something.

something awful, but it’s something.

California and electronic voting - that is what I am most worried about.

testing

http://55-40.blogspot.com/2007.....tball.html.Peter Wallsten in the LA Times is catching on to the Karl Rove strategy.

Day after day last week, outgoing White House political strategist Karl Rove delivered slashing attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. Her healthcare record was “spotty and poor,” he declared. Her candidacy was “fatally flawed,” he said. And no one with her negative poll numbers, he stated, “has ever won the presidency.”

Why did Rove, who often stays in the background, step forward to deliver such public attacks — especially when the Democrats haven’t begun to choose their presidential candidate for 2008 and when the general election is more than a year away?

The answer might seem obvious: Rove saw Clinton as a formidable opponent and wanted to get his licks in early.

For high-level campaign professionals like Rove, however, that kind of thinking may be too simple.

The decision to focus on the New York senator to the exclusion of other potentially formidable Democratic standard-bearers such as Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois offered a rare glimpse into a world where things are not always what they seem — the world of modern-day electioneering, whose denizens often prefer going from A to B by way of Z.

In this case, Rove’s weeklong broadside against Clinton — which he is expected to repeat in multiple appearances on television talk shows today — looks suspiciously like an exercise in reverse psychology that his team employed three years ago when it was preparing for President Bush’s reelection bid.

The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a postmortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush’s opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush’s reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove’s team opened fire at Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party’s nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Unlike Kerry, who had been in public service for decades, Edwards was a political newcomer and lacked a long record that could be attacked. And, unlike former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had been the front-runner but whose campaign was collapsing in Iowa, Edwards couldn’t easily be painted as “nutty.”

If that sounds implausibly convoluted, consider Dowd’s own words:

“Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters’ minds.

“So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards,” Dowd said. “And we knew that if we focused on John Kerry, Democratic primary voters would sort of coalesce” around Kerry.

“It wasn’t like we could tag [eliminate] somebody. Whomever we attacked was going to be helped,” he said.

Nicolle Wallace, the 2004 Bush campaign communications director, recalled at the Harvard conference that the campaign “refused” to even respond to Edwards’ attacks on Bush, not wanting to make him seem like a threat.

Edwards was selected as Kerry’s running mate and now is vying with Clinton and Obama for their party’s 2008 nomination.

Is Rove playing a similar game against Clinton? Is he trying to stampede Democrats into nominating her, having concluded that Obama, Edwards or someone else would pose a stiffer challenge to the Republican nominee?

It’s like I’ve been saying. The Republicans want us to pick Hillary Clinton, because they’re ready to cream her in the general. And, because we’re like perennial loser Charlie Brown (to Karl Rove’s Lucy van Pelt), we’re likely to fall into the trap. Again.

Astral Tecnician @ 23

testing

it’s the new you!

MayDaze @ 11

I think KKKarl wants Hillary to run against because of her high negatives and the fact that she may be the one thing that will get their base stirred to action.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

If KKKarl wants to see “negatives” all he has to do is look at those attached to his boss (or soon-2-B X-Boss). I seriously doubt anyone in America who’s not part of “the base” (gee, doesn’t that translate to ummm, al-qaeda in arabic or something) would ever vote for another Bush again.

Alright. Who the fuck is Mr. Cranky? And I should care why?

Wait, how do we know this isn’t extra-ultra-hyper-double-reverse psychology?

spell check

Jo Fish @ 9

Was the republican victory in the 2004 presidential race more attributable to Rover’s alleged “genius” or John Kerry’s failure to respond to the Swift Boat Liars in a timely and complete manner, thus allowing a draft-dodging fat man and his deserting sidekick to malign him without response?

Methinks it was the latter, but then WTF do I know?

I think it was largely attributable to Rove’s actual “genius,” which was for vote suppression, dirty tricks, and making government an arm of the GOP. Including, for example, making sure that the management of political events in Iraq served the short-term interests of the GOP, at the expense of the long-term interests of the United States and Iraqis (purple fingers! get that constitution approved; we can leave the hard stuff till later!)

Elliot @ 21: Timidity by the Gore and Kerry campaigns got chimpy elected as much as anything Rove did. IMO.

Bearpaw @ 28

Wait, how do we know this isn’t extra-ultra-hyper-double-reverse psychology?

That’s 5 which makes it regular psychology. Unless one is a double built in.

jim oconnor @ 31

Elliot @ 21: Timidity by the Gore and Kerry campaigns got chimpy elected as much as anything Rove did. IMO.

I would agree they were factors in their own defeats.

Did Rove ever say anything that was true?

OK, So it is conventional wisdom that impeachment hearings will hurt democrats. And conventional wisdom is worth how much?

IMPEACH

I personally won’t be too thrilled to see clinton as the candidate

too much corporate control, in bed with consolidated media too

I am hoping something happens that eliminates her from the field and she is not the one we choose

sorry

Elliott @ 33

jim oconnor @ 31

Elliot @ 21: Timidity by the Gore and Kerry campaigns got chimpy elected as much as anything Rove did. IMO.

I would agree they were factors in their own defeats.

Timidity means being shy or afraid, right? So what were they shy about?

Redshift @ 30

I think it was largely attributable to Rove’s actual “genius,” which was for vote suppression, dirty tricks, and making government an arm of the GOP. Including, for example, making sure that the management of political events in Iraq served the short-term interests of the GOP, at the expense of the long-term interests of the United States and Iraqis (purple fingers! get that constitution approved; we can leave the hard stuff till later!)

Well yeah, there was that too … the whole government became/has become somewhat of the political arm of the GOP, from heck-uva job Brownie to “cave-in” Stickler and all the appointees between.

SnarKassandra @ 37

Elliott @ 33

I would agree they were factors in their own defeats.

Timidity means being shy or afraid, right? So what were they shy about?

some might say Rove’s projects.

SnarKassandra @ 34

Did Rove ever say anything that was true?

Oh, I’m sure he’s told the truth often.

After all, one of the best ways to mislead someone is to tell the truth unconvincingly.

I do wish my party were a bit more outspoken about things. The most outspoken Democrats are Kucinich, Edwards and a very few more. And there is Gore.

SnarKassandra @ 34

Did Rove ever say anything that was true?

Lies all the time!

One example: On MTP yesterday, he repeated the lie that Saddam was given “every opportunity” to allow weapon inspections and Saddam refused.

Snarky- uh, not fighting for the recount and being old-school polite in dealing with thugs (yes, thugs) and allowing the bushies to frame the battle in FLA in 2000 without response (remember the “Brooks Brothers “”riot”"?) and the Swift Boat Liars campaign? Any bells ringing here?

MayDaze @ 11

If Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

I sure hope you’re right. I think KKKarl wants Hillary to run against because of her high negatives and the fact that she may be the one thing that will get their base stirred to action.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

I think they fear most what Edwards would do if elected, but they fear Hillary more in the election.

That said, considering their recent track record, I don’t think it’s worth bothering to react to their hopes and fears about our candidates; they’re most likely wrong anyway.

catfood @ 19

“They will make gains that will ultimately be characterized by the news media as “disappointing”.”

I don’t much care what the news media thinks. Regarding the Dems failure to mount any substantive opposition to Bush policy, I am indeed disappointed.

Great handle, catfood. Perhaps a lot of little old ladies are eating catfood lately. I shall only feel sentimental for the ones that voted Democratic.

Though, I did help an old blind Republican (is there any other kind? blind, I mean.) woman cross the street who told me that she “thank[s] God every day that George Bush is President”.

If I were a Karl Rove whom worked for the Democrats, I would have guided her into oncoming traffic. The ends justify the means. She is a very dependable Republican voter, after all.

MayDaze @ 42

SnarKassandra @ 34

Did Rove ever say anything that was true?

All the same rethug talking points you’ve heard over and over. One example: On MTP yesterday, he repeated the lie that Saddam was given “every opportunity” to allow weapon inspections and Saddam refused.

Those are lies. I was asking about true stuff.

methinks rove believes his own hype cuz the MSN also calls him uhhhhhh “genius” now he feels he can tell dems who to select as candidate…. the fucking nerve of him…. march his lying ass off to somebody’s jail and quickly!!

MayDaze @ 11

If Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

I sure hope you’re right. I think KKKarl wants Hillary to run against because of her high negatives and the fact that she may be the one thing that will get their base stirred to action.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

You are right. Back in 2004, the GOP was more afraid of Edwards than Kerry. It was why Rove began attacking Kerry. Rove figured the more he would attack Kerry, the more press and ultimately support he would receive. Rove knew Kerry was the easier Candidate to defeat.

Samestorythis time with Clinton.

I don’t think you need any special instinct to see that the time has run out on Rove…

But if you give any person a platform especially Rove you’ll bet he’ll use it…

Let me put the situation a bit more abruptly. I want the Democrats to start screaming their fucking heads off about where this nation is heading.

1,573 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Patriots:

“If Karl Rove says that Hilary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.”

She may well be able to “massacre any Republican opponent she might run against” and still be bad for Democrats. In fact, I believe that the corporate fascists will be better off with Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama than with any of the current crop of Republic candidates as long as the Congress stays in Democratic hands.

Trust me folks, the corporate oligarchy doesn’t want a Rethug President with the collapse of our economy and our military comin down the track in ‘09.

If Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic candidate, I will work against her election and devote my time and meager resources to electing real Democrats to Congress.

KEEP THE FAITH AND BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!!

Hmph. Everyone on the right coast must be clocking out and on the road or sompin’…LS @ 22

California and electronic voting - that is what I am most worried about.

Two words: Debra Bowen…

Jo Fish @ 43

Snarky- uh, not fighting for the recount and being old-school polite in dealing with thugs (yes, thugs) and allowing the bushies to frame the battle in FLA in 2000 without response (remember the “Brooks Brothers “”riot”"?) and the Swift Boat Liars campaign? Any bells ringing here?

wasn’t Tim Griffin (US Attorney AR) one of the rioters?

sd @ 12

Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

can’t agree with you on that one - classic rovian reverse psychology.

(or was that tongue-in-cheek?)

I’m with sd on this one. They attacked Kerry in 04 because they were afraid of Edwards.
They’re afraid of someone right now, but I don’t think it’s Hillary.

yellowdogD @ 54

sd @ 12

can’t agree with you on that one - classic rovian reverse psychology.

(or was that tongue-in-cheek?)

I’m with sd on this one. They attacked Kerry in 04 because they were afraid of Edwards.
They’re afraid of someone right now, but I don’t think it’s Hillary.

Any of the dens could beat them. My cousin likes Obama and I like Edwards and Kucinich, but any of them is a zillion times better than George.

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

SnarKassandra @ 46

MayDaze @ 42

All the same rethug talking points you’ve heard over and over. One example: On MTP yesterday, he repeated the lie that Saddam was given “every opportunity” to allow weapon inspections and Saddam refused.

Those are lies. I was asking about true stuff.

Yeah, caught too late that you said true instead of untrue. Fixed it, but you were just too quick!

Can’t come up with anything off the top of my head, but good liars always mix truth and half-truth in with the lies. Gotta keep ‘em guessing!

Hillary is at her highest negatives now..15 months before the election. She has been trashed by the right wing for twenty-five years and has survived. The “boys” who want the nomination really don’t understand, at an emotional, what is going to hit them and their families. Does anyone think that Hillary will be timid and hold back against any and all attacks. Of the “boys”, I think Edwards is the only one tough enough to survive.

New lead at TPMMuck:

Bradley Schlozman, a former Justice Department official who was at the center of the U.S. attorneys scandal and is under investigation by the Departments inspector general for his alleged efforts to politicize the Civil Rights Division, has finally left his post at the Department.

Redshift @ 44

MayDaze @ 11

If Karl Rove says that Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democrats, I think it’s pretty safe to assume she’d massacre any Republican opponent she might run against.

I sure hope you’re right. I think KKKarl wants Hillary to run against because of her high negatives and the fact that she may be the one thing that will get their base stirred to action.

I think the right has been pillorying Edwards because he’s the Dem they fear the most.

I think they fear most what Edwards would do if elected, but they fear Hillary more in the election.

That said, considering their recent track record, I don’t think it’s worth bothering to react to their hopes and fears about our candidates; they’re most likely wrong anyway.

Actually I think they fear Edwards more for both which is why he has been sabotaged so much.

I think rove needs to help out susan collins.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

I hate pink - am female. I have met very few women who actually like pink.

Elliott @ 53

Jo Fish @ 43

Snarky- uh, not fighting for the recount and being old-school polite in dealing with thugs (yes, thugs) and allowing the bushies to frame the battle in FLA in 2000 without response (remember the “Brooks Brothers “”riot”"?) and the Swift Boat Liars campaign? Any bells ringing here?

wasn’t Tim Griffin (US Attorney AR) one of the rioters?

Why isn’t Tim in jail yet and where’s Palast and Conyers?

Let’s look at the upside.

Roverer has made it possible for deserters, draft dodgers & stone cowards to smear Veterans & War Heroes….and republican scumbags will vote for them !

Twain @ 62

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

I hate pink - am female. I have met very few women who actually like pink.

I like purple and green and some pink. But mostly purple and green.

yellowdogjim@54

agreed - they dont fear hillary at all - she’d continue bushco’s acts imo…. now edwards yessss

Astral Tecnician @ 23

testing

were you previously a subway musician? and are you now a star repairman? Jes’ curious…….

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

Hey thanks OKK,
I’m fascinated by this stuff. And I like pink and I don’t care who knows it. Blue has never been my favorite color.

bob @ 24

It’s like I’ve been saying. The Republicans want us to pick Hillary Clinton, because they’re ready to cream her in the general.

Or perhaps, the corporations that own both parties would like Clinton in, so as to prolong a continuance of their strategic objectives…Thus, Rove (ever eager to teabag the holders of real power) has ‘volunteered’ himself to misdirect the yahoo base, with an eye to disenfranchisement…While whipping up a contra emotionally-based popular movement to ‘aid the cause’.

Jo Fish @ 43

Snarky- uh, not fighting for the recount and being old-school polite in dealing with thugs (yes, thugs) and allowing the bushies to frame the battle in FLA in 2000 without response (remember the “Brooks Brothers “”riot”"?) and the Swift Boat Liars campaign? Any bells ringing here?

For 2004, maybe, for 2000, it’s a lot of hindsight. The main flaw in 2000 was not realizing that these people weren’t playing by any laws or rules (for example, we didn’t know about where the mob came from in the “Brooks Brothers Riot” until after the election.) In 2000, an awful lot of us still believed we were in a hard-fought contest to win a legitimate election, not a bare-knuckles fight to seize power by any means necessary, and I don’t believe there was any way for the Gore campaign to know that before it was too late.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

Male crabs have blue claws and females have pink claws..gender based creationism at work.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

I’m glad to see that. I really hated Hillary’s pink ensemble in the first debate. Hillary needs more votes from women than men, perhaps.

I too am afraid of Hillary’s ties to the corporatocracy. They are the ties that bind. How I wish Kucinich would be our candidate.

In the end, I will vote for the candidate who wins the primary. Hillary may be the one.

I was thinking Astec in honor of Pach

Steve-AR @ 71

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

Male crabs have blue claws and females have pink claws..gender based creationism at work.

Is that so they fall in love with each other’s claws?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

This actually looks like a pretty sad piece of research. There is no control for culture influence, no historical perspective (e.g. it was only in the last couple of centuries that ping was associated with women and girls. It was for a time thought to be too strong of a color for them…). The logic is of about the same quality as that of the Harvard president who conclude women are less suited for math and science since there are fewer of them in those fields. Nice circle.

LS @ 22

California and electronic voting - that is what I am most worried about.

And these practice runs of rounding up ‘illegals’. There’s going to be a huge sweep before the election.

Twain @ 62

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

I hate pink - am female. I have met very few women who actually like pink.

I’m skeptical of this too. There’s a picture of my great grandfather in his christening gown a little before 1900. We still have that baby gown in my family, and it’s a faded pink color. Cutural conditioning is very powerful and babies are surprisingly cogent. I have no doubts that any observed color preferences could be imprinted well before a year of age and certainly by six months…

In any case, the researcher loses massive points for a gratuitous Eve and the fruit connection :-P

I do not own one pink item in my closet and I have tons of clothes. Never liked it.

Froomkin’s up with a column on Rove. Amid all the “if Karl said it, it must be so” dreck and dross in the traditional media was some interesting through-the-looking-glass speculation that his high-visiblity trashing of Hillary Clinton is a “please-don’t-throw-me-in-the-briar-patch” tactic. A Rovian Fake-Out, as Froomkin puts it. (How “Rovian” of him).

So, in a reverse-psychology mindset, Rove figures the Democrats will do what he says they shouldn’t do, because he says it. Because he really thinks that Hillary is the candidate that Republicans have the best chance to beat . . . or at least is more afraid of an Edwards or Obama.

OTOH, why was he recently praising the acumen of Rahm Emanuel?

OTOH 2, why should we even put any energy or attention on what Rove says? Unless it’s under oath in front of Leahy or Conyers, or a federal judge.

Snarkassandra @ 37: I think they were afraid of losing. They bought into an idea that they couldn’t win with a campaign based on traditional Democratic principles.

I think the roots of this go back to Reagan and the defeats the Dems suffered after Carter. Clinton won two elections as a Republican-lite candidate and the Dem establishment adopted the strategy that in order for Dems to win they couldn’t be real Dems.

SnarKassandra @ 37

Elliott @ 33

I would agree they were factors in their own defeats.

Timidity means being shy or afraid, right? So what were they shy about?

They were afraid of being declared “soft on ____” (fill in the blank with whatever the current fear is). I think the way they can kill that meme once and for all is to develop some spine, and get some transplants for those rubbery knees and attack Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and the rubber-stamp Republicans. Instead, they spend too much time wringing their hands and whining about not having enough votes, and then voting to give the Republicans whatever they want. Pfaugh! They don’t have enough cajones to push back. The public doesn’t think they’re too shy; the public thinks they’re too weak.

Bob in HI

Jo Fish @ 9

Was the republican victory in the 2004 presidential race more attributable to Rover’s alleged “genius” or John Kerry’s failure to respond to the Swift Boat Liars in a timely and complete manner, thus allowing a draft-dodging fat man and his deserting sidekick to malign him without response?

Methinks it was the latter, but then WTF do I know?

Kerry was too beholden to the consultant class. Does anyone here know how we can start a consultant business as it relates to elections. I bet we could get eight to ten people from FDL together and kick the snot out of most, if not all Republicans.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 56

Here’s something to ponder.

Women really do prefer pink, study finds
Finding is among the first to show gender-based color preferences

LONDON - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.

Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20361263/

Don’t know where this research is coming from…

I come from a family of four girls…

A long time ago my mom bought me and one of my other sisters a pink and a blue mirror…

I remember us fighting over the blue one….

Not that I care for blue now, mind you…

jim oconnor @ 80

Snarkassandra @ 37: I think they were afraid of losing. They bought into an idea that they couldn’t win with a campaign based on traditional Democratic principles.

I think the roots of this go back to Reagan and the defeats the Dems suffered after Carter. Clinton won two elections as a Republican-lite candidate and the Dem establishment adopted the strategy that in order for Dems to win they couldn’t be real Dems.

But didn’t Carter lose because the economy was in the crapper, and because he couldn’t resolve the Iranian hostage crisis?

I’m a painter, and there is no color that I dislike.

For the moment, I’m going with the viable candidate with the progressive message - John Edwards.

Next week, who knows.

I could care less what Karl Rove thinks. He represents the dirty politics of the past.

We want change in America, and we’re getting it, slowly but surely.

Change was the mantra of the Clinton run for the presidency and it will be the mantra again in ‘08.

SnarKassandra @ 74

Steve-AR @ 71

Male crabs have blue claws and females have pink claws..gender based creationism at work.

Is that so they fall in love with each other’s claws?

LOL!

A blue-lovin’ female here . . .

Pink is better for wearing with jeans, and better when it is hot outside. Blue is better because it makes my eyes shine more. And purple is just more fun.

jane-
i’m thinkin’ ol’ karl’s ‘antennae’ needs adjusted, he’s been waaaaaaaay of on his calls for a while now……..it’s come to-if karl says it, do the opposite and you win….it’s almost like he’s out-thinking himself, overanalyzing to the point of implosion…..or infraction………don’t see his sightseeing worth being worth gold anymore……..

posted both of these earlier…….there is a quote in here about how he was instructed to perform the interviews yesterday……it’s a short one….has links to his sunday appearances……..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....newsletter

this one is about his political moves…..hatch violations…..is a longer article, but interesting….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....newsletter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....newsletter

Joe @ 84: I agree with those points. Don’t forget Teddy K didn’t help by challenging Carter. (I love Ted, but that’s a blemish to be sure).

Rove made a comment during one of his Sunday appearances that he “was doing what he was instructed to do”.

Who did the instructing? The shrub, cheney, who else?

So is Rove the new Shrum, destined to consult for a string of Republican losers, simply because no-one in the party can come up with a better system even though his is not working?

One can hope.

juslin @ 66

yellowdogjim@54

agreed - they dont fear hillary at all - she’d continue bushco’s acts imo…. now edwards yessss

That was yellowdogD at 54. I’m sure yellowdogjim is a fine person, but he shouldn’t get credit (or blame) for whatever I may say. g;)

Former Fed @ 90

Rove made a comment during one of his Sunday appearances that he “was doing what he was instructed to do”.

Who did the instructing? The shrub, cheney, who else?

God of course!

maybe it’s not so much that girls like pink but that boys just hate it… when I was working in a “non-traditional” position, the guys used to steal all my tools… so I painted ‘em all pink…. you never saw such upset! “we can’t use THOSE tools!” they cried…

which, of course, was exactly my intent.

There is only one way that the next President will be Republican - it would have to be the result of criminal actions.

Former Fed @ 90

Rove made a comment during one of his Sunday appearances that he “was doing what he was instructed to do”.

Who did the instructing? The shrub, cheney, who else?

Satan!