Re: Scrape Scrape Scrape; A Familiar Sound Indeed

1

If politics was MMA, this would be giving up your back to try to get out of being mounted and pounded out. Looks like desperation from here.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
2

They really are scrambling. You'd think they'd be less willing to reveal how horrible their polling is.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
3

Yeah, I've been thinking she was toast since Super Tuesday. I could be wrong -- I don't know much -- but I just can't see her coming back.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
4

I'm not even sure what their polling could tell them about Texas, given how weird the primary+ system is. Isn't the Clinton campaign surging in Ohio?


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
5

We often share ideas about politics, policy and language.

Oh shit, does this mean if Obama wins he's going to try and pay for his policy initiatives by building a bunch of casinos?


Posted by: JL | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
6

they also share David Axelrod.

y'all are making me nervous though. I'm like a crazy fatalistic sports fan about political races: I feel like if I put an Obama bumper sticker on my car now, I will make him lose the nomination.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
7

While lesser minds would call that superstition, it's completely true. I personally destroyed the campaigns of both Chris Dodd and John Edwards that way. I'm thinking about trying on McCain next.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
8

How long until some Clinton surrogate comes up with something along the lines of "all black politicians sound the same to me".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
9

Wait a minute, didn't Clinton totally rip off the "Yes we can" line at a rally in Washington state? Didn't she rip off the "change" rhetoric after Iowa? How lame is it to call him out for plagiarism?


Posted by: Leo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
10

I feel like if I put an Obama bumper sticker on my car now, I will make him lose the nomination.

Not for nothing, but, you know don't. Not even if he wins the nomination. Wait till Nov. 5.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
11

9: I'm not sure Clinton has accused Obama of a single fault that she doesn't have in spades. It's really freaky to me how she keeps highlighting her own weaknesses by accusing him of minor gaffs.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
12

11: Clinton advisor accuses Obama of being stuff white people like.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
13

I get weird about accusations of plagarism outside of academic writing or other writing for publication. I mean, they've all got speechwriters -- there's no expectation that anything a political candidate says will be original to them, or if it isn't, will be credited to the person who thought it up. At which point, what's the difference between a speechwriter and something you read somewhere?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
14

12: #8 on the Site Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned.

Maybe it is just me, but right now my MS Office spellchecks Obama with suggestion Osama. (Google reveals that this has been noted elsewhere.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
15

12: this has already happened, no? The idea that Obama's supporters don't have "social needs" & can therefore vote for their "hip, young, imaginary black friend"?


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
16

13: I don't know, LB. The similarities between what I wrote here in November and what this guy at the NY Times got paid to write here in January bother me plenty. (It's the third-to-last graph in the Times and the bulleted points at my place.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
17

The seeming sureness that Obama will win reminds me of the days and even hours before NH. I now fear that Obama will lose in WI. Worse yet, everyone will drop into despondence, sure that HRC is sure to win the nomination. Just like after NH.

I think there's a way to go on this one, folks.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
18

16: Sure, but that's writing for publication -- it's right on the line between could be independent and he definitely plagarized you, but if he read your stuff and knowingly based his on, that's dead-on plagarism. Political speeches aren't writing for publication, though. Is there that same expectation that you're not going to repeat something you heard somewhere and agree with? I don't think there is.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
19

This could be clever narrative creation: o the resurgent Clinton! But that requires her to win big in the upcoming primary/primaucus things, and I'm not sure being seen as scrambling helps with that now. (It makes a great narrative if she wins, but otherwise, just reinforces the idea that they didn't know what to do once not inevitable.)


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
20

Obama totally stole that kissing babies thing from other politicians.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
21

18: If it were an academic conversation, Patrick would get a footnote.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
22

Okay, I'm out.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
23

That was one time where I thought that Patrick was much more eloquent, but I'm a sucker for quoting things in chronological order. Plus, I was at that rally, and it was pretty electrifying.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
24

21: Yeah, I assume for ideas, an academic would say, even orally, "As Deval Patrick said," and I assume you guys have social conventions for "I'll like to bring up an idea, it's not mine, but I can't attribute it on the fly." Possibly by saying just that.

But that sort of footnoting seems way discordant in a political speech, and obviously isn't necessary for speechwriters. Plagarism seems like the wrong kind of concept.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
25

Is there that same expectation that you're not going to repeat something you heard somewhere and agree with? I don't think there is.

Nor do I, especially not when it's not a verbatim quotation, but a repeated rhetorical technique. If those were the standards, well, every politician would be toast.

But I'm increasingly wary of the notion that plagiarism doesn't matter, or is trivial, in some forums (like online dating).


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
26

The seeming sureness that Obama will win reminds me of the days and even hours before NH.

Me too.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
27

I file this under "in it to win it," which I read as "do whatever it takes."

Pretty much. It turns into "Clinton is such a lying bitch" in five, four, etc. . . .


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
28

It turns into "Clinton is such a lying bitch" in five, four, etc. . . .

Not a "lying bitch," but the public financing thing she's pressing is a wee hypocritical and plays into "she's a 'politician'" script.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
29

(Put differently: it has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a Clinton.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
30

The only line of attack Clinton can really use is the inexperience thing. The irony being that it is precisely Obama's lack of experience that deprives her of much to use to attack him with.

Once she gets into the normal political stuff of questionable votes, crooked donors, lobbyists, etc. she's got ten weaknesses for every one of his she might point out.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
31

See? Toldja.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
32

31: Is that someone spoofing B? That's not really allowed, and I actually think that's a rule worth respecting.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
33

Was 31 to 30? That's not what I meant at all. *Any* politician who had been so closely associated with a governorship, a Presidency, and then had seven years in the Senate would have a ton of skeletons in the closet. Politics in America is a corrupt system, and to get ahead you participate in that corruption.

Obama's also a professional politician, but he just has a much shorter record. He has been pretty good at skating clear of corruption (except for the Rezko thing), but some of that is luck. All his opponents self-destructed in the 04 Senate race, he became a rock star, and money showered on his head. If he had had a tough opponent in 04 and hadn't gotten so much free publicity he would have had to raise a ton.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
34

The title of this thread wigs me out a little. I can think of several things that go scrape-scrape-scrape.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
35

34: Like a stand mixer!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
36

31 was to all the comments that followed the comment I'd made before it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
37

B, is it less sexist if we start calling her a lying asshole instead of a lying bitch? I'm happy with that.


Posted by: d7c | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
38

No. It's less sexist if you just recognize that all politicians run down their opponents, and the fact that Clinton is doing so in a hard-fought primary campaign doesn't say anything especially remarkable about her character.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
39

Politicians in general are lying bitches. Job requirement.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
40

37: If you say she's lying, you're calling her a "lying bitch," because such is the state of teh Patriarchy? Is that the argument?

If it is, I don't really care. I think you're badly wrong, and I think arguing about it will resolve nothing.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
41

Er, 40 to 36, not 37.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
42

36: I'm not sure how calling her "not a 'lying bitch'" is the same thing as calling her "a lying bitch." I mean, Not-A still isn't A, right?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
43

||

Does anyone know anything about the nationalization of the Northern Rock bank by the UK Government. Is it really containing the financial crisis? (Paging dsquared). Are there any good articles to read?

|>


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
44

The title of this thread wigs me out a little. I can think of several things that go scrape-scrape-scrape.

Marley's ghost

dentists

the cheerleaders for the football team of Scrape U., if such a team exists

etc


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
45

SEK you big dork: everything to do with her being a Clinton.

No, it doesn't. It's how the game is played.

Now, you can say that it's really impressive that for the most part Obama doesn't seem to do that same kind of thing, which I'd agree with. But that's not the same thing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
46

43: as far as I can see the govt. was in a position of certain huge losses now if they don't take it over, vs. carrying them on the books for a few years and reclaiming all/most of what's been dumped into the bank --- so long as the recession/whatever isn't too abrupt or too bad. Otherwise the money is gone anyway and the only question is if good gets thrown in after bad.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
47

1. What is being scraped is the bottom of the barrel.
2. B is posting as a parody of B.


Posted by: lurker from standpipe's blog | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
48

Does anyone know anything about the nationalization of the Northern Rock bank by the UK Government. Is it really containing the financial crisis? (Paging dsquared). Are there any good articles to read?

It's not meant to contain the financial crisis in any real sense that affects Americans; it's designed to prevent a run on the bank and subsequent instability throughout the rest of the British banking system. Northern Rock was basically the Countrywide of the UK, and during the first big shudder of the credit contraction last fall, their access to the credit markets dried up. (Since the UK real estate market is also a rapidly deflating bubble, lenders looked at what was happening in the US and decided to let Northern Rock take a long walk off a short pier.) There have been some good stories about the ongoing implosion at NR in the Wall Street Journal which may still be available online, and I'd imagine the Financial Times has better info yet.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
49

I don't think Clinton's a "lying bitch"--or not more so than the average politician and considerably less so than many--but her campaign seems to be working hard these days to suggest that there's at least a small degree of truth in those slanders.

Surely, there was a way to run her campaign without reinforcing the negative stereotypes which some people had of her already?


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
50

I can think of several things that go scrape-scrape-scrape.

Like Gene Bervoets at the end of this film.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
51

43:Not unexpected, too early to know what it means, and there are probably bigger problems. Generally my econblogs haven't covered it.

Calculated Risk ...comments can be helpful here, if you sort thru the chaff

Big Picture

I am trying to decipher Credit Default Swaps. I can understand writing insurance on a bond, but can't see how it turns into a multi-trillion dollar business.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
52

44
Ogged was scratching his head pondering about Obama's plagiarizing something accusations, right?
scratching one's head relieves stress they say
works like meditation


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
53

Thanks all. I heard that Goldman Sachs had been brought in to give advice, and it seemed odd to me that an investment bank would actually recommend nationalization, though I guess that they'd get fees either way.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
54

51 - Pension funds used them as a tool to manage risk, especially during a period when traditional corporate bonds weren't paying much (thanks, Greenspan), so they had to dive into riskier bonds, but as with many things that are backfiring now, buying insurance to make something behave like a safer investment doesn't always make for a safer investment. Meanwhile, investment banks made a penny here and a penny there by selling as many of them as humanly possible. The answer to "how did this bizarre financial complex get so big so fast?" usually boils down to "investment banks made money selling them to pension funds". nakedcapitalism.com may have touched on CDSes while he's been railing about the monoline bond insurers, I'm not sure.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
55

SEK you big dork: everything to do with her being a Clinton.

As to big dorkiness, well, that's a given. But my complaint about her being a Clinton is a complaint about her being a DLC-affiliated, Mark Penn-hiring Clinton. That's the sort of things Clintons do that Obamas don't. I wasn't any happier with Bill than I would be with Hillary. (Nor was I happy with Gore back in the days of the TelCom Act of 95.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
56

55 is exactly right. Anything that ends up taking the DLC down a couple pegs is likely to improve the Dems.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
57

Martin Wolf of Financial Times on Northern Rock, with a sidebar of links, via Tyler Cowen


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
58

53: They were very careful in the announcement to avoid the word `nationalization', if I've heard correctly. And stress `temporary'. If all goes well reasonably well in the recession, it's will have been a good idea. All is not guaranteed to go well, natch.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
59

Yeah, the idea that friends share rhetorical styles and arguments seems pretty noncontroversial to me. I steal good arguments from my friends all the time; if I'm talking to someone who knows the person, I'll say "as ____ once argued to me," but if I'm not, I'll just run with it.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
60

It's OK. Just ask Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
61

Wait. Obama is not the son of a Welsh coal miner? Then Clinton is definitely not a person who lies. Got it.


Posted by: Golza | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
62

Surely, there was a way to run her campaign without reinforcing the negative stereotypes which some people had of her already?

No. Because anything she does is going to reinforce some negative stereotype or another, as we've already seen: if she laughs, she's cackling; if she stays serious, she's humorous; if she mists up, she's faking, etc.


Posted by: dork | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
63

"humorous" s/b "humorless," of course.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
64

Pollster for WI, pollster for OH, pollster for TX, reminder of how much faith to put in those numbers.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
65

It's not plagiarism. But I don't think the rhetoric of hope did Patrick any favors. His approval ratings have plummeted during his year in office, and right now he's at a 48% approval rating.


Posted by: Wendy | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
66

61: Yes, where does Obama get off claiming Richard Llewellyn used him as the model for Huw Morgan in Love StoryHow Green Was My Valley (in the conceptual future sense at least).

...and come to think of it Obama ... earth tones, hmmmm. Do we have a problem Houston?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
67

The Clinton campaign should consider that a text is a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash; a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
68

67: Maybe you should write them a memo.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
69

LOL, I signed a comment "dork" by mistake. And none of you picked up on it?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
70

"bitchphd" and "dork" have been synonymous in my mind for so long I hardly noticed.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
71

I figured it was intentional.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 5:46 PM
horizontal rule
72

Is that what the D stands for?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
73

I have a degree in massive dorkitude, it's true. Shoes, bras, and dorking: very interdisciplinary.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 6:28 PM
horizontal rule
74

That's the sort of things Clintons do that Obamas don't.

We have *no idea* what Obama does or doesn't do. He hasn't exactly been a profile in courage since he got to the Senate. He definitely didn't step out there to the left wing with Feingold or those guys. He's pretty pragmatic.

It must drive the Clintons crazy that Obama has basically never been required to offend an important Democratic party constituency in his political career.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 6:32 PM
horizontal rule
75

We have *no idea* what Obama does or doesn't do.

We know he's not a member of the DLC; that he's organized his campaign without its institutional support within the party; and that he's not making any friends among its elite by challenging their designated candidate. All of those count as positives for me.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
76

PGD: But he's chosen to offend some, as with his push for mandatory taping of interrogations and mandatory recording of the race, sex, and age of people stopped for traffic violations in Illinois. The police force has a lot of Democratic friends as well as Republican ones; he shoved against some and won others over. (Both are part of his current platform, too.) He's been pushing on non-proliferation verification and funding, too, which isn't making the War Party any happier with him.


Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
77

You know what I love? When someone who was on the receiving end of the Whitewater pseudo-scandal tries to attack Obama with a real estate pseudo-scandal. God almighty but is the Clinton camp ever losing its shit.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
78

Shoes, bras, and dorking: very interdisciplinary.

I think shoes, bras, and dorks all fall under the same discipline, actually.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
79

78: Things that from a long way off look like flies?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
80

79: "wandered here from unfogged by mistake"


Posted by: ed bowlinger | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
81

77: "The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign."

I hope those poor bastards realize that their lives may be about to take a dramatic turn for the worse.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
82

oh shit, that site is written by an unfogger? I remember using some posts there to help me study for a test on some stuff i forgot to read. small world.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
83

by 'that site', i mean SEK's acephalous thing


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
84

76: Come on, why look back to an obscure bill on police interrogations in Illinois. You should look up Obama's statements during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in summer 2006. Also his record on Iran since he got to the Senate, including his sponsorship of a sweeping bill mandating disinvestment in Iran.

He has been very intelligent about seeking out the most liberal edge of "respectable, centrist" foreign policy opinion and sticking there, as opposed to questioning the basic War Party assumptions.

Look, Obama is for sure the closest we have in the race to a genuine antiwar candidate. But he's backed and filled carefully. That's fine, I respect his intelligence and pragmatism in aiming for the presidency. But it's just foolish to think you understand where he will land or what he will do once he becomes President.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
85

81: No doubt.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 02-18-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
86

I'm kind of impressed that for the last few days visits to a number of different blogs have been kicking up Obama ads telling me where to find my caucus tomorrow night. I assume that's relatively cheap compared to broadcast advertising and it's very nicely targeted.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 12:06 AM
horizontal rule
87

Wait, yoyo, you used my place to cheat? I'm...flattered?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
88

86:meanwhile, the no-name Republican running against Dick Durbin has apparently bought a big ad to be seen by everyone in America who reads Talking Points Memo. That should help a lot.

"Whoops, Durbin has an opponent! I'd better make sure to actually vote for him this time!"


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
89

Krugman with another update on Obama's commitment to healthcare.

This fits in with my sense, based on everything we've seen in this campaign, that Obama just isn't all that committed to health care reform. If he does make it to the White House, I hope he proves me wrong. But as I've written before, from my perspective it looks as if a dream is dying.

I don't really know enough of the relevant history to make my own judgment.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
90

Studying isn't cheating, SEK.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
91

Well, if he's studying material he didn't read ...


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
92

Isn't he still learning it? What's he missing out on? A couple months after the exam, all that's going to be remembered anyway are the main points.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
93

Isn't he still learning it?

Not if he's getting it from my blog, he isn't.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
94

Update: the ad for Dick Durbin's Republican opponent also graced my screen just now at the Chicago Reader website. At least that's read by Illinoisians, albeit not the ones who would respond to the slogan ""We must stop Liberal Dick Durbin"".


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
95

But it's just foolish to think you understand where he will land or what he will do once he becomes President.

Sure, if you believe in the Magic President who has only to wish something to make it true. I have to admit that the Magic President Theory has always struck me as a little foolish, though.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
96

(93's a knock on my silly blog, not yoyo.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-19-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule