Links and stuff
First, several birthdays missed -- inamac, savepureness, and I believe but am not sure about a couple of others . . . Happy birthday to you all! And I'm sorry I didn't say it at the time.
In advance-- happy birthday to everyone having one in the next month in case I forget!
Melissa McEwan on how women are usually portrayed in movies and the relationship of this to people telling her they can't take her blog seriously if she blogs about personal stuff:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-how-are-we-supposed-to.html
(also Melissa nominated for Andrew Sullivan's "Michael Moorer" award for "bitter and divisive left wing rhetoric" here http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-honor-to-be-nominated.html )
A cool new liberal blog that's heavily pro-Hillary:
http://nomoreapples.blogspot.com
Sasha found this a while back but I've been overwhelmed w/things and just checked it out for the first time this morning. Now I wish I'd been reading it regularly for the past month. Highly recommended for Hillary supporters or those who aren't but wanna think about it. =)
For Obama supporters, btw, saying "he has detailed plans on his website" has been sort of joke among Hillary supporters for a while now. It is not an answer to a policy debate, or even a debate about his plans since (1) It's a big website and we don't really want to go roaming around looking for whatever you're talking about unless you give a quote and/or link to a specific part, and (2) He has previously apologized for things on his website by saying he didn't write it or monitor it and didn't know the stuff was there.
From the always excellent eriposte, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php, on pretending to be Troubled by his opponent for behaviors that have long been the defining characteristic of his own campaign is pretty silly. After all, not only does Sen. Obama have an impressive record of repeatedly attacking Sen. Clinton using classic, offensive and usually false Republican talking points, prior to Sen. Edwards' withdrawal from the race it used to be widely known among some of the same people who are now his supporters that Sen. Obama had an impressive record of using false right-wing talking-points against fellow Democrats. I have pointed this out many times previously on a variety of topics and for the record, I am going to point this out again, given the latest outburst of crocodile tears and false indignation from his campaign and some of his supporters in the blogosphere. Here is just a sample of the large number of Republican-style attacks from Sen. Obama or his campaign against Sen. Clinton (and sometimes President Clinton) just in the past 8-10 months:
Various people on the not always that leftist (i.e. Kos--who's said himself he's about electing democrats, not liberals, used to be a Republican and has recently described himself as a libertarian) types who seem to wish Hillary supporters to leave the democratic party . . .
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/04/small-tent-demo.html for a more polite tone, and for something a little harsher and more in line with my own temperment . . .
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/04/party-crashers.html
These are the same people who trashed Obama as part of the Clinton/DLC cabal in 2006. Was there a lick of truth in their words about him then? No. Is there any greater honesty in their adulation of the Precious now? Ha! They like Obama for the same reason Karl Rove likes the guy - he's their Clinton killer. Edwards didn't do it, so chuck that loser and his diseased wife (how dare she say anything nice about Hitlery! Just shows Elizabeth was always a pandering bitch...) over the side 'cuz now we got us some real ammo against those miserable HillBillies, yessiree Bob!
Talkleft on the slanted debate:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/19/103112/835
For those not clicking, I concur entirely -- yes it was slanted against Obama. Which makes it the first debate out of how many? And Hillary kicked ass even when it was her against everyone month after month after month, and the Obamabots told all of her supporters to quit whining. Now, the tables were turned, Obama didn't handle it nearly so well, acts like a complete ass afterwards, she jumps many points in a few days in every national poll, and his fans can think about that whole whining about media bias thing whilst ignoring that the one poll where he suddenly does better is getting more attention than all the ones where he does worse, and the Obama endorsing LA Times made the unfair-to-The-Precious* debate their center-of-front-page story in Friday's paper. And re: the polls -- We'll soon see which are more accurate. I'm going w/SUSA, btw, they've been the most accurate so far, tho policy matters more than polls, regardless.
* -- "The Precious" as a term for Obama comes from the always-interesting Anglachel. While I don't know the genesis, I'm guessing it has to do with his very existence or sparkling charisma or something tending to warp and delude the thinking of the vast majority of his supporters. Yes, I know there are sane ones--I quote Armando at TalkLeft frequently, and a bunch of you are on my f-list. Similarly, there were strong-minded people better able to resist the influence of the One Ring, so the analogy holds. =)
In advance-- happy birthday to everyone having one in the next month in case I forget!
Melissa McEwan on how women are usually portrayed in movies and the relationship of this to people telling her they can't take her blog seriously if she blogs about personal stuff:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-how-are-we-supposed-to.html
(also Melissa nominated for Andrew Sullivan's "Michael Moorer" award for "bitter and divisive left wing rhetoric" here http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-honor-to-be-nominated.html )
A cool new liberal blog that's heavily pro-Hillary:
http://nomoreapples.blogspot.com
Sasha found this a while back but I've been overwhelmed w/things and just checked it out for the first time this morning. Now I wish I'd been reading it regularly for the past month. Highly recommended for Hillary supporters or those who aren't but wanna think about it. =)
For Obama supporters, btw, saying "he has detailed plans on his website" has been sort of joke among Hillary supporters for a while now. It is not an answer to a policy debate, or even a debate about his plans since (1) It's a big website and we don't really want to go roaming around looking for whatever you're talking about unless you give a quote and/or link to a specific part, and (2) He has previously apologized for things on his website by saying he didn't write it or monitor it and didn't know the stuff was there.
From the always excellent eriposte, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php, on pretending to be Troubled by his opponent for behaviors that have long been the defining characteristic of his own campaign is pretty silly. After all, not only does Sen. Obama have an impressive record of repeatedly attacking Sen. Clinton using classic, offensive and usually false Republican talking points, prior to Sen. Edwards' withdrawal from the race it used to be widely known among some of the same people who are now his supporters that Sen. Obama had an impressive record of using false right-wing talking-points against fellow Democrats. I have pointed this out many times previously on a variety of topics and for the record, I am going to point this out again, given the latest outburst of crocodile tears and false indignation from his campaign and some of his supporters in the blogosphere. Here is just a sample of the large number of Republican-style attacks from Sen. Obama or his campaign against Sen. Clinton (and sometimes President Clinton) just in the past 8-10 months:
Various people on the not always that leftist (i.e. Kos--who's said himself he's about electing democrats, not liberals, used to be a Republican and has recently described himself as a libertarian) types who seem to wish Hillary supporters to leave the democratic party . . .
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/04/small-tent-demo.html for a more polite tone, and for something a little harsher and more in line with my own temperment . . .
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/04/party-crashers.html
These are the same people who trashed Obama as part of the Clinton/DLC cabal in 2006. Was there a lick of truth in their words about him then? No. Is there any greater honesty in their adulation of the Precious now? Ha! They like Obama for the same reason Karl Rove likes the guy - he's their Clinton killer. Edwards didn't do it, so chuck that loser and his diseased wife (how dare she say anything nice about Hitlery! Just shows Elizabeth was always a pandering bitch...) over the side 'cuz now we got us some real ammo against those miserable HillBillies, yessiree Bob!
Talkleft on the slanted debate:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/19/103112/835
For those not clicking, I concur entirely -- yes it was slanted against Obama. Which makes it the first debate out of how many? And Hillary kicked ass even when it was her against everyone month after month after month, and the Obamabots told all of her supporters to quit whining. Now, the tables were turned, Obama didn't handle it nearly so well, acts like a complete ass afterwards, she jumps many points in a few days in every national poll, and his fans can think about that whole whining about media bias thing whilst ignoring that the one poll where he suddenly does better is getting more attention than all the ones where he does worse, and the Obama endorsing LA Times made the unfair-to-The-Precious* debate their center-of-front-page story in Friday's paper. And re: the polls -- We'll soon see which are more accurate. I'm going w/SUSA, btw, they've been the most accurate so far, tho policy matters more than polls, regardless.
* -- "The Precious" as a term for Obama comes from the always-interesting Anglachel. While I don't know the genesis, I'm guessing it has to do with his very existence or sparkling charisma or something tending to warp and delude the thinking of the vast majority of his supporters. Yes, I know there are sane ones--I quote Armando at TalkLeft frequently, and a bunch of you are on my f-list. Similarly, there were strong-minded people better able to resist the influence of the One Ring, so the analogy holds. =)