Comments on: A Trip Around Blogtopia*

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:05:14 +0000

I’d like to think even though I’m for Obama strongly and have all kinds of reasons why I’m not for Hillary, I’d have been more sensitive to what scores of people here have characterized as Mathews’s aindefensible attacks on Clinton, and I haven’t noticed the negativity as much as everyone else has.

I’m not trying to be insensitive, but I think the issue has become obliterated by the slang use of the pimp phrase.

What strikes me, and I’m sure you noticed is that when KO or Mathews have pitched their attempts at humor at Shuster (and I don’t mean what they’ve been criticized for here) Shuster has reacted with such propriety it’s odd to me he would have used a slang term like this on camera anyway–but who knows.

Maybe I’ve heard so much Hardball in the last year or so, I’ve tuned out a lot of his comments. I didn’t notice it and I’m not being cute–I’m probably honestly just being dense.

I wouldn’t have suspended Shuster. I’m with you there, and it’s of course their call, but if they have any sense of proportionality he should be back on Monday IMHO.

Bmaz– have you noticed that Dan Abram’s show (Floyd’s son) has morphed into examining more relevant EW type topics lately. He drilled into Bradbury last night. He used to do a lot of police blotter/Britney in court/Baby Daddy legality/OJ stuff with the local DA talking head types, and I tuned him out, but he’s gotten better and more interesting lately.

By: twolf1

twolf1 — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:07:16 +0000

Giuliani stole them all.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:58:54 +0000

Listen, clearly you don’t like Hillary Clinton, and that is fine; but this is a moronic comparison.

By: bobh

bobh — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:58:10 +0000

Right, an “honorable” defeat for dishonorable people.

By: brendanscalling

brendanscalling — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:46:44 +0000

after the past 3 years, and especially since breaking all the promises of the 2006 election? Not too many carrots.

I still dole out the occasional carrot: when Bob Casey votes the right way, I call him out for praise to the 800 subscribers to the Drinking Liberally Philadelphia bulletin.

But in the case of the ~~Let’s Rape Consumers Act~~ Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005? Not forgiven, not forgotten. That bill fucked up my credit but good: first my rates went through the roof, then I couldn’t pay off a credit card bill no matter how much I threw at it, and now the thing’s in default. If I had a stick, I’d break it over Joe Biden’s stupid fat head.

The housing implosion, btw, is intimately linked to the bankruptcy bill.

By: Badwater

Badwater — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:38:36 +0000

Hillary Clinton chooses to present herself as more experienced because she was First Lady. Laura Bush has been First Lady for nearly as long.

By: centidude

centidude — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:17:17 +0000

Why does Senator Clinton not wear dresses any more? Ever?

Really? A serious question?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:16:13 +0000

If you are going to equate that with freaking dead plant laura Bush, there is no reason to engage in a discussion with you. Peddle your cheap crap somewhere else; I am not buying. I am not even a Hillary fan, but this crap is insane.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:14:05 +0000

Pete – I think that Schuster is very good and I like him a lot. I think his remark in this case was uncalled for and inappropriate. Chelsea may be “fair game” because she has been out on the trail, but this was not fair or supportable. From everything I can see, the Clintons have somehow or another really done a good job raising Chelsea, she from all reports and indications is charming, extremely bright, has her head screwed on correctly and she has certainly comported herself with class and not been in any unseemly limelight whatsoever. I think Schuster should be reprimanded and apologize; what the reprimand is is up to his employers. Personally, I don’t think I would have suspended him, but if his employers choose to for a brief period, that is their prerogative. The bigger problem, and I watch MSNBC a lot (except for Tucker), is that they all have really been on a clear cut attack of anything and everything Clinton for a while now, even Olbermann. It is unseemly in my eyes; and although it got a little more below the suface since then, it has only increased in frequency and effect since Matthews was called on the carpet for his way out of bounds hateful comments about Hillary after the New hampshire primary. They have been on a tear since then, and they needed to be called on it. It should not be just the Clintons calling them out either; what they have been doing is so unprofessional as to demean the credibility of NBC news in general and the presidential election cycle. Like the Clintons or not, what MSNBC has been doing is indefensible.

By: SueN

SueN — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:08:15 +0000

Hillary does have an independent problem… the independents are essentially republican-lite. If they break, they would likely break towards a male democrat, but not a woman. Thus, if the dems want to get the “independent” vote, they ought to never run a woman candidate for President. And this will make it safe for independents. OTOH you can look at the primary results in the populous blue states and figure that none of this really matters because Hill got the plurality of the votes by a huge margin. All she needs is to pick up Florida and some Southern and Western swing states with enough of the “independent” and Hispanic and Asian votes to augment the traditional democratic vote. She may even make some in-roads into women republican votes.