Hey now! After long months of primary campaigning, things snap back into a new perspective as Hillary Clinton takes her turn at the questioning. She looks very tired but also substantially better-prepared than most of her Democratic colleagues, and she has very good questions (thus far Jack Reed and her are in a different league from the other Democrats) plus at the end of the day she and I are on the same side, and these Republicans are the other side. Always good to return to earth. I'll look forward to this primary being over and all the liberals pulling in the same direction.
« Let Them Eat Empty Slogans! | Main | Buy My Book! »
Not a Monster!
08 Apr 2008 12:39 pm
Comments (18)
Yeah I thought she was pretty good... and yeah she sounds really really tired.
However, I wish she would have just asked questions instead of putting in so much preamble... I guess that's politics, but she only got in a couple questions because of it (and Petraeus's filibustering).
Foreign Relations is this afternoon. I have to check and see if Feingold is on that. It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say this afternoon.
I might note that the sides certain people choose at the end of a day during the primaries may not be the same as the sides they will choose at the end of a day during the general election campaign, or the end of a day once in office, or the end of a day when running for re-election (of course those last two periods are often co-extensive), or so on.
Re "I'll look forward to this primary being over and all the liberals pulling in the same direction"
--------------
Yeah, right.
That falls in the category of "I'll look forward to Angelina Jolie recognizing my good qualities and dumping Brad so she can have hot sex with me".
"... plus at the end of the day she and I are on the same side."
Really? As far as Iraq is concerned? How would you characterize the side Clinton is on? If she is elected, what do you expect her to do?
"She looks very tired..."
The "Matt Y. is a Misogynist Watch" starts in 3,2,1...
>
>
let's take out Jack Reed and adjust the verb agreement - would you ever right "her is in a different league from other Democrats?"
also should be "than" not "from"
you are far better than most bloggers - but what is the aversion to saying she and not her when the latter is so clearly wrong?
Obama was interviewed on the Today Show this morning. He seemed a little exasperated. Video available on his YouTube channel.
"Would you ever right 'her is in a different league from other Democrats?'"
I wouldn't, but I would probably also spell "write" the right way.
would you ever right "her is in a different league from other Democrats?"
It's better upside down.
sfs 1, hopeless pedant 0
Jack Reed always kicks ass at these things. I'm always impressed by everything about him, save the lack of charisma and terrible clothing. He'd be good at the DoD.
Don Williams: The thought that after the primaries are over, liberals can unite, may seem utopian to you, but the percentage of Clinton supporters who say they would not vote for Obama in November--and Obama supporters who say the same of Clinton--is no higher than the percentage of pro-McCain Republicans who in 2000 told pollsters they wouldn't support Bush in November.
I really do believe that the prospect of a third Republican term in the White House and especially what it means for the Supreme Court will concentrate a great many minds in Novenber.
also should be "than" not "from"
No, probably not, though tastes differ. "different from" is preferred by most, unless the "from" would be followed by an independent clause, I think, in which case "than."
also should be "than" not "from"
No, probably not, though tastes differ. "different from" is preferred by most, unless the "from" would be followed by an independent clause, I think, in which case "than."
David T,
People also seem to forget that once the primaries are over, the losers tend to campaign for the winner, which typically helps the winner convert the losers' former supporters.
I hate to (well, I really don't) raise this again, but...
What are the Dems going to do if Bush and Cheney start a war with Iran by the fall elections?
Remember, Josh Bolton said, "The Dems will lose over Iran" back in 2006. They didn't get the war started then, but that was clearly the concept he was referring to.
And there's absolutely no doubt that Bush and Cheney are still devoted to starting that war - the fact that Petraeus and Crocker are blaming everything on Iran makes that clear.
Are we going to see the "liberals all pulling in the same direction" then?
I suspect not. And that's exactly what the Republicans will count on.
Comments closed April 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wish I could listen to/watch this at work. I'm against a President Hillary Clinton, but she seems like a very good Senator. I wonder, though, how much of her motivation as a senator is because of her presidential ambitions (which have been apparent to me from the day her husband left office).
Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 12:47 PM