Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPolitics, it is said, is show business for ugly people. So it only made sense when the Democratic presidential race came to Hollywood, viewers of the last debate before a score of states will hold primaries and caucuses February 5 would be invited to compare the celebrity candidates who remain in the race – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – with actual celebrities.
Thus, as Obama and Clinton spent inordinate amounts of time parsing the spending formulas for their health care plans during Thursday night's forum in Los Angeles, CNN's cameras crews spent inordinate amounts of time searching out and focusing on George Constanza (actor Jason Alexander), Archie Bunker's son-in-law (actor-turned-director Rob Reiner) the Titanic guy (Leonardo DiCaprio) and James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) and Stevie Wonder.
These "Academy Awards moments" were often more engaging than the actual debate.
Seated just inches from one another, Obama and Clinton chose to host an academic seminar rather than rumble in a "Super Tuesday" wrestling match.
When Wolf Blitzer tried to get the candidates to spar a bit, it didn't really work. While the differed on some particulars of how they had previously answered questions about whether to grant driver's licenses to immigrants, or whose health care plan was more thoroughly compromised, most of their clashes ended with compliments.
"I respect Senator Clinton's record. It's a terrific record." If there was a point of disagreement, it was on the pressing question of who was more like John Edwards.
One day after Edwards quit the race in which he said he represented "the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party," the remaining candidates pursued his endorsement by lavishing so much praise on the former senator from North Carolina that it was hard to remember why he quit the race.
Obama opened his remarks by paying homage to "John Edwards, who did such an outstanding job of elevating the issues of poverty and working people…"
Clinton upped the ante by saying "I'm very grateful for the extraordinary service of John and Elizabeth Edwards…"
When the subject turned to health care, the senator from New York said, "I have put forward a plan similar to what Senator Edwards put forward."
Minutes later, Obama said, "I think that a lot of issues that both Sen. Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year -- some of the toughest since Watergate -- and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign."
Even when Obama and Clinton reviewed their minor differences on questions of how and when to withdraw troops from Iraq, Clinton said, "We're having a wonderful time."
And it almost seemed that the candidates -- who almost came to blows in their last debate before the South Carolina primary ended this one with a hug -- were getting along.
For the first time since this campaign began, it was possible to imagine these two contenders as running-mates.
Clinton came close to saying as much during a discussion about whether her proposal to mandate universal health care coverage or Obama's proposal to expand access might be preferable, the senator from New York said of the senator from Illinois, "We share a lot of the same values… we are trying to work our way through to get to where we need to be and that is to have a united Democratic party…"
But neither Clinton nor Obama is running for vice president just yet. Despite one warm and fuzzy debate, don't think that this race has gone "soft." Simply recognize that Obama and Clinton no longer choose to be seen slinging mud at one another in public. They'll do that via direct mail and negative radio ads as their struggle to secure the nomination hits its critical stage in coming days -- and, if "Super Tuesday" proves inconclusive, coming weeks and months.
Only when one candidate claws his or her way to the top will we get a sense of whether Thursday night's magnanimity was feigned or the start of a beautiful relationship. And, even then, personal ambitions and political calculations make a fall combination of this duo no more likely than a John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson pairing in 1960 or a Ronald Reagan/George Bush match in 1980.
But even Wolf Blitzer noticed the dynamic.
Referring to the potential for a "dream ticket," the CNN anchor asked, "Would you consider an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket down the road?"
"Obviously, there's a big difference between the two…" said Obama.
But he did not shoot the speculation down. He merely referred to it as "premature."
"Well," Clinton chipped in, "I have to agree with everything Barack just said."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Everything out of Hillary Clinton's mouth is either a half-truth, a lie, or a cliche ("we need to roll up our sleeves"; "we need to come together...").
Guess it doesn't matter to millions of women who, in their infinite unreflectiveness, only see breasts and lipstick. "She's a woman! She's a woman!" is as far as their mind takes them.
Posted by Adscititious at 01/31/2008 @ 10:29pm
Maybe it's real. Maybe they've fallen in love tonight. Maybe they'll fly off to Rio together and let the country fend for itself. Maybe Oprah and John Edwards will win against McCain and Huckabee.
Posted by JFHill at 01/31/2008 @ 10:39pm
Yes. Those two. Together. They'll win. Either way. And it will be good.
Posted by deejfarb at 01/31/2008 @ 10:53pm
Two points:
1. Was Hillary Clinton naive in voting for the Iraq War resolution?
Answer: No, but she was politically calculating when she voted for the Iraq War resolution.
2. Is Obama be the best candidate to oppose McCain, who presents himself as the 100-year war candidate, or is Hillary?
Answer: Obama - Obama will provide a clear and better choice versus the Republican candidate.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 01/31/2008 @ 10:53pm
Her stumble on tonight's Iraq question was amplified by her polling guru, Mark Penn on MSNBC afterwards; he fumbled around, and hemmed and hawed, and was clearly displeased that the issue had even been raised by Olbermann. Team Clinton clearly does not have answer.
And that raises the question: Does ANY progressive Democrat really want that Union-buster Penn playing Clinton's Rove for the next four years? You know he didn't take this job without a firm promise of insider power for at least four years - he's not exactly an altruist...
You are who you associate with, and HilBill have clearly chosen to associate with the lowest form of political operative at the very highest levels of their campaign. Take a look at Penn's CURRENT clients (he won't even quit his day job while she runs for president!) - he's a man without a conscience. Can this country survive four more years of that kind of Machiavellian presence behind the scenes in OUR White House? I don't think so.
I don't believe Obama would EVER let her on his ticket; he'd be better off with Edwards or McCaskill.
Posted by sjduskin at 01/31/2008 @ 10:55pm
I can't believe you're complaining about the candidates having a substantive debate. Using terms like "inordinate" and "academic seminar" are negatively loaded. The American political system is in such horrible state partly because of the Jerry Springer Show mentality of the media and sadly this article just contributed to the problem.
Posted by obieland at 01/31/2008 @ 11:02pm
In case I wasn't clear above, Mark Penn, Mark Penn, Mark Penn. Go read about him!
Posted by sjduskin at 01/31/2008 @ 11:03pm
News flash: the presidency has already been decided. It will go to a committed proponent of US imperialism, corporate power, and the Great Enterprise being run out of Washington, DC. The actual figurehead in the Oval Office, the result of the technical process of election, will be decided later this year in a cut-and-dried televised process guaranteed to enrich media consultants and sell lots and lots of viewers to advertisers on prime time TV.
brought to you by the good folks at "Wally's Waterboards"........
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 11:12pm
I've seen all good people turn their heads each day, so satisfied I'm on my way ... I've seen all good people turn their heads each day, so satisfied I'm on my way ...
Take a straight and stronger course to the corner of your life, make the white queen run so fast, she hasn't got time to make you wise ...
Yes
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 11:30pm
Obama - Edwards
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 11:31pm
Make Hillary A.G. freak the Reich out ...
Posted by V at 01/31/2008 @ 11:32pm
It's come to this, it's come to this, and wasn't it a long way down ...
Both candidates are signed on to the imperial project, so we measure -- finger to the wind -- for who'll bomb perhaps a bit less. Yes, there's the Pardon Selling & the de facto violation of the 22nd amendment as well, & these alone are enough to push one away from Her Imperial Majesty (HIM). Leave her in the Senate, put Edwards in as AG, if we get so lucky. She flunked the DC bar exam, quite an accomplishment given its ease relative to, say, NY & CA.
Or is it just her vision that is dim.
Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 12:38am
RE: "Obama-Clinton? Clinton-Obama? "
Wishful thinking. "Obama - Anybody" and "Clinton - Obama" would be an easy target for GOP. The only one thing that sells is Clinton.
Posted by HelenDAO at 02/01/2008 @ 01:09am
News flash: the presidency has already been decided. It will go to a committed proponent of US imperialism, corporate power, and the Great Enterprise being run out of Washington, DC. The actual figurehead in the Oval Office, the result of the technical process of election, will be decided later this year in a cut-and-dried televised process guaranteed to enrich media consultants and sell lots and lots of viewers to advertisers on prime time TV
i am so bored of reading zero's posts, but i just have to reply to this:
ok, zero. go ahead, don't vote.
if you don't vote, you automatically support the winner. no matter who it is.
so you might as well select the winner who is less-worse than you wish.
Posted by darladoon at 02/01/2008 @ 01:36am
News flash: the presidency has already been decided. It will go to a committed proponent of US imperialism, corporate power, and the Great Enterprise being run out of Washington, DC. The actual figurehead in the Oval Office, the result of the technical process of election, will be decided later this year in a cut-and-dried televised process guaranteed to enrich media consultants and sell lots and lots of viewers to advertisers on prime time TV
i am so bored of reading zero's posts, but i just have to reply to this:
ok, zero. go ahead, don't vote.
if you don't vote, you automatically support the winner. no matter who it is.
so you might as well select the winner who is less-worse than you wish.
Posted by darladoon at 02/01/2008 @ 01:36am
Oh c'mon, you all know Zero's post is true. Or did none of you notice that both of the front runners have extremely similar agendas (as is made so poignantly clear in this article) and both promote increasing the military budget? That both promote the only reasonable option for continuing US imperialism in Iraq (news flash: the Pentagon is struggling to maintain troop levels in Iraq even now, they'd probably have to institute a draft to do so by 2012). Neither promotes anything close to say repealing the federal communications act of 1996 (the first step in media consolidation). Promoting reliance on real sustainable energy (I'm talking geo-thermal, hydro electric, and solar, not uranium/coal as both will run out eventually).To all you naysayers, I site NewScientist as my source saying we could run the US on solar power. Or acting to stem the tide of the race to the bottom commonly referred to as globalization (despite how much this would help us with global climate change, and work to stop China from becoming the dominant super power by denying them lots of foreign investment). Just because us progressives are cynical bastards, doesn't mean we don't have valid points.
Posted by shadow master at 02/01/2008 @ 02:00am
Loved that dissection of the debate, John.
And I loved Zero's take of John Edwards as the ghost of Banquo.
It's becoming crisply clear at this point that the Dems have a stellar opportunity to seize the wheel and redirect the ship of state in a much more promising direction. And I realize that's asking a helluva lot, but a glimmering of hope is the tiny nub we all hang onto.
As much as I agree with a multitude of observers here that Barack Obama has presented only thin gruel to sustain a savagely progressive appetite, I submit that we should give him our full-throated support because he now represents the only reasonable hope for the complete transformation of the "American consensus".
By "American consensus" I mean the dull view of the world that we are superior and posses some sort of manifest destiny to rule the planet. The sooner we Americans divest ourselves of that bit of self-aggrandizement, the sooner we will join the rest of the world and settle into a fair-minded view of how the overwhelming odds of the dilemmas that the entire planet faces must be engaged with every ounce of our combined intelligence.
Who knows in what direction we may find ourselves stumbling, but it doesn't seem too foolish to choose a captain who embodies a little multi-cultural sensibility, to find ourselves in a much more favorable planetary milieu.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 02:10am
I have to agree with Zero that we are choosing between the sane and insane wings of one imperialist party. But isn't it clear which we should prefer? If you can get a group of imperialists in power who think that soft power works better than military alternatives, that think that scientists know what they are talking about, that are hesitant to destabilize regions just to open markets, and that know you need to keep the working class out of poverty as much as you can (so they don't wise up), isn't that something worth pushing for, given that no anti-imperialist alternative is out there?
I have heard the argument (not on this board but in the meetings of anti-war groups) that we are better off with republicans because they are not bright enough to hide the imperialism or bring it off succesfully. Similar reasoning motivated communists in interwar Germany to tacitly support Hitler's rise to power because they thought that fascism represented capitalisms last desperate attempt at life. The damage the republicans can do is too great to be neutral. Once Obama, or, heave help us, Clinton gets elected, go back to making signs, printing leaflets and holding protests. That is what I will be doing. But we have a small window to get someone sane in power who will take action on things like Global Warming and nuclear proliferation.
The massive shortcomings of the democratic party should not blind us to the mixture of insanity and stupidity that the republican party represents. Its like deciding between making a relatively stable ass-hole your kids godparent and making an drug addicted sex offender their godparent. The fact that they both are awful does not make it the least bit rational to not care which one get them.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/01/2008 @ 02:43am
This debate can be viewed several ways. It may well be that both sides agreed not to play into the hands of the media who have been hell bent to magnify and exploit any division that can be induced. That is the last thing either candidate or the Democratic party needs.
In the past the neo-cons have always laughed at how the Democratic party manages to "self destruct" and the media has always been more then happy to set the stage and pave that way. I don't think Democrats need to be tricked into that gambit (again).
In the name of party unity, I give added stars to each of the front runners and John Edwards! We need to take this country back and that is plain and simple for any and all.
Posted by Blasthoff at 02/01/2008 @ 02:56am
RE: post at 2:10 am
Occasionally a song comes to mind that suits the ideas that I'm trying to convey.
Here's a sublimely classic tune that seems to fit fairly snuggly with my thoughts about American exceptionalism.
Conquistador.
Enjoy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 03:05am
Head vs. Head: A tie. Obama was persuasively wonky. Heart vs. Heart: Obama wins again. And with identity politics, heart trumps head. On Iraq: Obama wins. With too many brands to choose from, the choice wasn't clear. Down to two, there's clearer brand differentiation: He voted against, she didn't. Obama has the high ground. On immigration, healthcare and the economy: A tie. There are differences, but the identity voters won't be swayed by them. Obama is getting stronger, more presidential. Clinton is getting better, her answers are starting out much stronger, but then she does that amazing real-time mental calculus of hers, something uniquely Clintonian, and you feel she's saying what she thinks you need to hear...you feel played. Obama seemed a bit out of place in that venue, which is good for him. Who picked a stage in Babylon, with camera pans to Diane Keaton, Rob Reiner and Josh from "West Wing"? Hysterically stupid choice, very '80s, very Bloodworth-Thomason, very Aaron Spelling. Time for a Change.
Posted by fougasseu at 02/01/2008 @ 06:33am
Obama wont be Hillary's VEEP. In fact, I don't know who would want it, what with the Big Dawg rootin around the West Wing and setting the agenda. When you have two presidents, three's a crowd. Maybe, if she gets elected, she can find an ex-lieutenant governor or something who doesn't mind being a figurehead.
Posted by DavidRaphael at 02/01/2008 @ 07:00am
I have been on the Democratic side for years. I think they would both be good presidents, but I prefer Obama. However, no matter who wins I think they are now obligated to choose the other as VP. They are both popular and how can you snub the first woman or the first black to be VP? I will be one of the first to say that if Hiliary wins and does not choose Obama as her VP, I won't vote for her. I will sit this one out. I know other people that would do the same if Obama won and didn't choose Hiliary. I really hope they don't mess this one by choosing someone else. It could be disasterous for the party.
Posted by Filazafer at 02/01/2008 @ 07:51am
These two spend all their time putting each other down and then are supposed to tell us to forget all the nasty stuff they said about each other and vote for them as a team?Is it any wonder that so many people view all of this as a joke?A bad joke.Of course,POTUS election years are always a time for partisan people to spend lots of time contradicting themselves.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/01/2008 @ 09:11am
Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 01/31/2008 @ 10:29pm
Don't forget her classic line, whenever she gets accused of something or is nailed for doing something unseemly....it's...
"I think everybody should ((say it with me)) TAKE A DEEP BREATH...and wait and see what...blah,blah,blah,blah"
It's like everytime she does something bad...we all become asthmatics.
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 09:25am
Nice to see some diverse voices on this thread.
Today's Krugman op-ed, "The Edwards Effect" is a center ring bulls-eye.
Key excerpts:
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans -- a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party's base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan...
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a "change" candidate. But he isn't offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship -- and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It's true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn't all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama...
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won't do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn't -- yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 09:43am
The damage the republicans can do is too great to be neutral.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/01/2008 @ 02:43am
Again, a great post.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 09:46am
FYI - On yesterday, Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and Mr. Inflation Fighter of the 1970s and 1980s) endorsed Obama for President.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/01/2008 @ 09:54am
Lest I forget, a big round of applause to The Nation and Chris Hayes for the brightly clear cover story, "The Choice".
Sure, that cover should have come out two or three months ago --and featured a portrait of John Edwards-- but for better or for worse we should all be Obama supporters now.
And if Barack Obama is going to be the progressive president that we wish for, it is us who will have to work to supply the forces that will shape and propel his agenda.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:08am
BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it.To make it a law will just make people unable to afford the coverage afraid to go to the hospital when ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!
Posted by gregjones at 02/01/2008 @ 10:09am
[universal health care] paid for by....someone else? Raise taxes....
~Johnny "the Monsta" Maasch @ 09:59am
Not exactly, Monsta.
Part of the revenue needed to pay for universal health care will be gathered by increasing the revenues from what you generate in your China deals, Monsta --in the form of a roll back of Dubya's staggeringly stoopid tax cuts for those who never clamored for them in the first place.
Of course, in your case, clamoring for your own selfish interests is as natural as a baby sucking on it's momma's teat.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:19am
BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it.To make it a law will just make people unable to afford the coverage afraid to go to the hospital when ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!
Posted by gregjones at 02/01/2008 @ 10:19am
very Aaron Spelling.
Posted by FOUGASSEU 02/01/2008 @ 06:33am
yeah.
"Blitzer's Angels" or "The Love ME Boat".
or better yet, "Fantasy Election Island".
"Boss, it's dee B-1..........."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:23am
Yo Greg Jones.
Enough already, dude.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:24am
FYI - On yesterday, Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and Mr. Inflation Fighter of the 1970s and 1980s) endorsed Obama for President.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/01/2008 @ 09:54am
freiheit, ¿dónde estás?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:27am
posted by jomamma 02/01/2008 @ 09:59am
well, you could always borrow a few more trillion from hu jintao, currently the paramount leader of the people's republic of china, holding the titles of general secretary of the communist party of china since 2002, president of the people's republic of china since 2003, and chairman of the central military commission since 2004.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:30am
It's like everytime she does something bad...we all become asthmatics.
Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 09:25am |
you know, as a musician, sound is very important to me.
and after hearing dubya's condescending phony texas drawl, having to hear shrillary's "dulcet" rasp everyday will be the straw that breaks ....................
wait, i need to take a deep breath.
shit, now i'm more worried.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 10:33am
It'd really be a neat video for some creative (maybe pro-Obama, but may be too late for Super Tuesday) YouTuber to put together...
go back to 1992 and loop all the times Her Nibs has said "take a deep breath"...and then may her SIGHING or something. (then dub in Darth Vader respirator sound...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by GREGJONES 02/01/2008 @ 10:19am
Thanks, Greg. Read this the FOURTH time you posted it.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:40am
fz,
I hope ya' dug that Procol Harum tune I posted. I hadn't heard that one in very many moons so it was hair raising for me to hear it again with an added appreciation for Gary Brooker and Keith Reid's song writing genius.
The song revived some images form Werner Herzog's film classic, "Aguirre, The Wrath of God".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:48am
(then dub in Darth Vader respirator sound...heheh)
Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 10:38am
hillary's general election campaign song is gonna be called BREATHE EASY, AMERICA.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:53am
I think the VP slot is for Richardson no matter who wins.
Just my hunch.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 10:59am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 10:48am
yeah, my big brother is a big procol harum fan, and conquistador is a song i grew up listening to. i've never seen the herzog movie. one day.
you know, mexicans often say "the spanish messed up this and that, they conquered and etcetera'd.
my response was this: "the aztecs, too were an empire. an empire is never built by being nice. the spanish just did it better."
i laugh when people say we are "superior" to animals.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 11:00am
I think the VP slot is for Richardson no matter who wins.
Just my hunch.
Posted by HMAN23 02/01/2008 @ 10:59am
let's hope so.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 11:00am
I'm beginning to aspire to the thought that Hillary's lifelong delusion of becoming prez is just a pipe dream.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 11:03am
thanks. i'm gonna watch that with my son at lunchtime.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 11:25am
barackally clintama.
spread the "word".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 11:31am
Heard this this morning, it stuck for some reason:
"Rock on- ancient woman Follow those who pale In your shadow
Rulers make bad lovers You better put your kingdom up for sale
Did she make you cry Make you break down Shatter your illusions of love Is it over now- do you know how Pickup the pieces and go home."
Rumours - Fleetwood (Cain) Mac
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 11:51am
barackally clintama.
spread the "word".
~Frosty Zoom @ 11:31am
I'm doin' my best not to. It's not transmissible via the internet I hope.
And didn't the CDC recently assure us that it couldn't possibly be unleashed on the populace?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 11:58am
Here's one for Frita:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/1/01848/97707
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 12:02pm
"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is not a bad dream."
"Sheep" Pink Floyd
Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/01/2008 @ 12:07pm
Ah yes, Animals :D
If you didn't care
What happens to me
And I didn't care
for you
We would zig-zag our way
through the boredom and pain
occasionally glancing up through the rain
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/01/2008 @ 12:02pm
Sorry, HSUB...I'm holding out for all those MyDD and Kos posts after Obama or Hillary wins the nomination, even after the Convention is over...
where "Gore is going to run as an independent against both Hillary/Obama and McCain!!!!"
(and your posting of the links, and then denying that you "ever said it would happen!!!!")
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 12:37pm
FROSTY, B_KOOL, HMAN....
anybody got Black Sabbath's "Evil Woman"???
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 12:40pm
Ha! On METT's playlist no doubt.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 12:53pm
"and now, by special request, mask from spuds, florida, sends this one out to all the goldwater girls of little rock high. FROSTYROCK, CFZZ 113.9FM:"
Wickedness lies in your poisoned lips
Your body moves just like the crack of a whip
Blackness sleeps on top of your slate bed
Don't you wish that you could see me dead
************************************************************************
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Evil woman, don't you play your games with me
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 1:11pm
FROSTY, B_KOOL, HMAN....
anybody got Black Sabbath's "Evil Woman"???
~Maskot @ 12:40pm
Outstanding blast from the past selection, Maskot :D
I've got the album on vinyl. I remember reading a biography about the Sabs many years ago, and the fact that they made their first record for something like a couple hundred dollars. It didn't take long and they were snorting all the coke they could handle and making a record at Laguna Beach.
Also, there's a funny story about Geezer Butler painting his apartment interior entirely black and hanging upside down crosses for decor -- until he saw a ghost and freaked out. lol.
P.S. A better tune for Hil is this one. Vincent Price does the opening narration --a classic.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:12pm
(and your posting of the links, and then denying that you "ever said it would happen!!!!")
Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 12:37pm
Why would I deny that I would ever have posted the links? Frita has such a bizarre imagination...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 2:11pm
Well, what about a little irony for Frank:
Got a black magic woman
Ive got a black magic woman
Got me so blind I cant see
That shes a black magic woman
Shes trying to make a devil out of me
Dont turn your back on me baby
Dont turn your back on me baby
Yes dont turn your back on me baby
Stop messing round with your tricks
Dont turn your back on me baby
You just might pick up my magic sticks
Got your spell on me baby
Got your spell on me baby
Yes you got your spell on me baby
Turning my heart into stone
I need you so bad, magic woman
I cant leave you alone
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 2:19pm
Here we go: http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-CT-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-AL-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-GA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 1:12pm
Can't beat the "Sabbath".
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 02/01/2008 @ 2:11pm
Oh, okay, HSUB. DO you agree with the MyDD poster that Al Gore will get into the race after Super Tuesday?
(Hint- Talk about me....talk AROUND the subject...but don't answer the question directly...ok....Go!)
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:45pm
(Hint- (1)Talk about me....(2)talk AROUND the subject...(3)but don't answer the question directly...ok....Go!)
Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 4:45pm
er, ok...: 1. You're Frita, 2. Maybe, 3. The word 'after' can be a very long period of time..., i.e. 'after' the big bang, like it could never end..., but sure, anything is possible. And considering the length of time you asked about, reincarnation should kinda kick in...
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/01/2008 @ 6:12pm