Comments on: More Of Josh Isay’s Greatest Hits

By: cbl2

cbl2 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:43:52 +0000

late to the thread -

just seeing that graphic up there made me spew - can never see it without hearing the words “ribbed for her pleasure”

By: selise

selise — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:29:30 +0000

wow, thanks. but yikes! now i’m gonna have to work at living up to that. *g*

gotta say that for me disagreement is part of the challenge and fun here (so long as it doesn’t devolve into personal insults, etc).

By: Funnydiva2002

Funnydiva2002 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:21:29 +0000

That’s what I like about you Selise (among many things), your conviction that wrong is wrong is wrong regardless of where anyone is on the political spectrum. I disagree with you sometimes, but always honor and admire your integrity.

FunnyD

By: TheLurkingMod

TheLurkingMod — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:20:19 +0000

Marcy has a piece up over @ emptywheel
Rahm’s 21 Conversations with Blagojevich and Friends?

By: Twain

Twain — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:18:04 +0000

Does this remind anyone of ”The Candidate”?

By: Funnydiva2002

Funnydiva2002 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:15:16 +0000

Wouldn’t make it right or smart. I’m so sick of this blind adherence to executive prerogatives I could just spit (up), whether it comes from the Right or the Left. I’m hoping Paterson is a better representative of his State’s citizens than that. Because that’s what it boils down to for me. His job as governor is to represent the citizens’ interests. Winning an election (in this case for Lt Gov, iirc) shouldn’t be some sort of blank check when it comes to political appointees.

FunnyD

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:13:55 +0000

Have you read her books? I think you would see that she doesn’t take a Federalist Society position on these issues. She accepts that the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) has to be interpreted according to modern circumstances, but that it is designed to protect our FUNDAMENTAL individual rights. Her book on privacy specifically addresses these issues as that “right” is hardly explicit in the Constitution, at least in terms of the myriad issues that impact us today.

And I’ve yet to see anyone point out someone who has run Statewide that has expressed an explicit set of positions that they would take to the Senate. I guess this is because no one really thought either Senate seat would be available for decades.

By: Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:13:50 +0000

Hi, Norske.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism I’m hearing here is that people think I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment because I supported Hillary Clinton (I didn’t). It’s a straw man argument that doesn’t seem worth jumping in to. Hillary herself seems to be okay with Kennedy’s appointment according to Ben Smith, after Caroline called her. (Again, currying support from elites, not the public.) And I frankly don’t care whether Hillary Clinton supports her or not.

Jeralyn (who supported Clinton) favors her appointment, while Markos (who supported Obama) does not. People trying to jam the primary lens onto this conversation seem to be working out their own personal issues rather than having an actual conversation.

By: newtonusr

newtonusr — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:13:38 +0000

Again I ask: Which has precisely what to do with an appointment to a Senate seat in New York State?

Hamsher makes the point clear as day - where, in any piece she has written on this subject, is it stated that Caroline is anything but a fine person, captured in a devilish and corrupt process by folks who seek their own political ends by installing her?

Links please.

By: Funnydiva2002

Funnydiva2002 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:09:40 +0000

Isn’t Obama even more tainted by the dreaded connections to Lieberman, using your logic?

Strictly speaking, Yes. And this was openly thoroughly and heatedly discussed here during the primary season and beyond, iirc.

FunnyD