Kucinich would be my top choice, but he has no chance of winning anything.
sozobe wrote:Going over my notes:
I wrote that Richardson wants the VP slot if Hillary gets the nomination. I don't remember what prompted it... the last note before that was "eliminate congressional earmarks." (Transcripts will be available soon enough and then I can figure it out.)
No transcripts yet, but it's not just me:
Quote:First question: Is it a priority to balance the budget every year? Obama goes partisan right away, blaming Bush for the current unbalance. Richardson praises the Clinton years, earning another notch on his "Make Me Veep" belt.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/12/13/live-blogging-the-iowa-democratic-debate.aspx
interesting, the CNN undecided's preferred in order,
Edwards
Obama
Clinton.
The coverage I'm hearing and reading suggests (so far) no knock-punches, no big mis-steps.
One guy interviewed by the CBC said it was just boring - everyone being too careful.
Yeah, it was pretty boring. I had fun because it's the first one I've seen in a long time. Obama's quickie retort was a high point I think, but I also think it's telling that it was a quickie -- it wasn't a talking point. Several of 'em (all three front-runners included) often glided over the actual question and launched right into their talking points. Yawn.
[quote="blatham"
And one could as easily charge that you are 'reading' Gore's claims in line with your own partisan cognitive comfort, george.
[/quote] Nonsense ! The obvious fact is that neither the internet nor its predecessor, the DARPAnet (= Defense Advanced Research Agency) were created by legislative fiat. Gore's claim, however it was stated, was a serious distortion of the obvious truth, and it was done in an equally obvious attempt to enhance his reputation and image. Such groundless bragging is, in almost any situation, deserving of ridicule and contempt.
Quote:georgeob1 wrote:[quote="blatham"
And one could as easily charge that you are 'reading' Gore's claims in line with your own partisan cognitive comfort, george.
Nonsense ! The obvious fact is that neither the internet nor its predecessor, the DARPAnet (= Defense Advanced Research Agency) were created by legislative fiat. Gore's claim, however it was stated, was a serious distortion of the obvious truth, and it was done in an equally obvious attempt to enhance his reputation and image. Such groundless bragging is, in almost any situation, deserving of ridicule and contempt.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know. And the Almighty is steering the path of your present president. He's confident of it and who am I to hold such a claim up to ridicule and contempt or consider it arrogant or imagine that it serves to enhance his reputation and image - in his own mind.
You have me pinned down, george. How can I compete with your perceptions and wisdom.
That Bush may be a fool does not in any way alter or diminish the fact that Gore was acting in a manner deserving of ridicule and contempt in his childish and vain bragging about the internet.
georgeob1 wrote:That Bush may be a fool does not in any way alter or diminish the fact that Gore was acting in a manner deserving of ridicule and contempt in his childish and vain bragging about the internet.
And which "childishness and vanity" has had the consequence of a hundred thousand dead and hundreds of thousands maimed and thousands of US kids without arms and eyes and a justice department turned into an electoral machine and science communities associated with the government smoothered for electoral gain and a citizenry who have been purposefully radicalized by fear and hatred for electoral gain and...?
Criticize Gore's inflated claim re his contribution. That's no problem for me. But you leave off address to the rotting and stinking elephant right in front of you and I'm not impressed. One impatient friend to another.
I read Gore's statement the same way georgeob does; he's trying to take total credit by his inference.
cicerone imposter wrote:I read Gore's statement the same way georgeob does; he's trying to take total credit by his inference.
There are consequences for living in proximity to that many gay people.
Resorting to ad hominems now, blatham?
blatham is a Portlander. That's how these people talk after falling off their bikes.
cicerone imposter wrote:Resorting to ad hominems now, blatham?
Resorting! I take offence at this charge! My use of ad hominem is hardly to be likened to the frustrated mis-step of some dilletante amateur.
blatham, Get back on your bike.
Bernie is a good guy and, no matter how much we may disagree, I like and respect him. Nutty political ideas are not a suitable basis for condemning a person. He can stay on or get off his bike as he chooses, and I will be unaffected.
His point about my failing to criticize Bush for his failings (and mis steps) while emphasizing Gore's has some merit. I did not raise the Gore/internet matter - I was just trying to counter Thomas' rather amazing whitewash of the thing (an uncharacteristically partisan act on the part of a usually very rational observer of the scene). Bernie also knows that I do have a hard time fully acknowledging all of his views on the current administration. He knows I am conflicted by my judgements of the merits and alternative views of his critics - things which seem to me at least equally as flawed. I'm doing my best at all this, and can only hope for his forbearance and tolerance.
Ahem.
I don't mind the stuff about other 2008 candidates because a) I said that'd be fine in the opening post and b) even if we take the subject to be Obama, how the other candidates are doing and their strengths and weaknesses has a lot to do with his candidacy, too. This stuff is pretty much totally off-topic though, unless you consider Gore a viable candidate in 2008, which I don't. (Polls notwithstanding.)
