Re: Manufacturing Dissent

1

We know, from the valuable research of Kung Fu Monkey, that about 27% of the U.S. population is batshit crazy.

However, the Hillarybot phenom raises a disturbing possibility that the 27% figure is indeed "too low," as KFM feared, because they calculated it from the % of votes for Alan Keyes in his race against Obama.

Did that figure only disclose the right-wing Crazification Factor? Could there be another 27% of batshit crazies on the left?

I showed my Magic 8-Ball the coverage of the Hillarybots at the DNC, then asked it that question, and its answer was "Signs Point to Yes."


Posted by: Anderson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
2

When Republican supporters say things that sound like they're coming from an alternate reality, I figure that we have different priors and priorities, but when I hear it from Democrats, I realize again, holy shit, you can control people's minds.

It's a big party, and there are probably a fair number of Dems who have different priors than you have. What is effectively the Party of the North was the Party of the South within (an admittedly long) living memory, for example. Alternatively we all have the same priors, but there are a lot of them in any one location. What matters is which prior is foreground, and that changes with social circumstance. So an ethnic Iranian-American might be willing, at this time, to believe things about this government, or the Republican foreign policy establishment, that would strike someone else as crazy.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
3

there are probably a fair number of Dems who have different priors than you have

Actually, I've decided that everyone is having their mind controlled.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
4

Um, I see your point, Tim. But the disfranchisement stuff simply doesn't jibe with reality. In other words, it's really not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of living in the reality-based community (so-called). And just to be clear, I think there are all kinds of reasons that reasonable people might support Clinton. It's just that this latest gambit isn't one of them.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
5

Actually, I've decided that everyone is having their mind controlled.

Who is Mr. Big?

In other words, it's really not a matter of interpretation

We just disagree here: most things are a matter of interpretation, and this is one. We just disagree with their interpretations.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
6

There is no truth in Tim's world, but it is always sunny.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
7

||

Worst Deborah Solomon piece of crap ever.

Prime Poor Man fodder, hint hint.

|>


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
8

Doesn't this fall into the category of "people make up their minds first and then retroactively seek justification"?

The reason to float a series of crazy ideas is not that people will here them and be convinced but that people who have an inchoate belief, that can attach itself to that justification.

It's like a seed crystal.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
9

5.1: Chris Noth?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
10

I think NickS gets it right in 8.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
11

Could there be another 27% of batshit crazies on the left?

I know this is a joke, but I don't think Hillary supporters count as "on the left."

Secondly I don't think it's batshit crazy to support Hillary Clinton. I support Obama, but Hillary Clinton isn't comparable to Alan Keyes as a candidate.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
12

Tim is a mad-dog realist.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
13

I don't think it's batshit crazy to support Hillary Clinton

This isn't about supporting her. It's about being passionate about a particular argument that's clearly disingenuous.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
14

7: I thought that Webb dealt with it wonderfully.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
15

Tim is a mad-dog realist.

Some call him Thrasymachus.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
16

This isn't about supporting her.

I was just replying to the implied comparison between the Obama-Keyes race and the Obama-Clinton race.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
17

there seem to be Clinton supporters who are genuinely outraged by "disenfranchisement"

Since 9/11 : Chappaquiddick :: Since Clinton fell to second place : Disenfranchisement


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
18

There's been a lot of real crap coming from the Clinton campaign and its surrogates. My sister is a member of AFSCME, or maybe the AFT, and she loaded a load of borderline-racist anti-Obama stuff on us about a month ago. It's not surprising that some of the Clinton militants are batshit; they've keyed their campaign on personal attacks for a month or two.

Presumably it will all come out in the wash, but they've really been playing with fire.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
19

Actually, I've decided that everyone is having their mind controlled.

Hovertext?


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
20

I am passionate in defense of reason
You rationalize in defense of your passion.
He is a robot.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
21

The beauty of this one, as opposed to the Saddam-Osama connection, is that there's a real kernel of truth in there. Florida Dems were disenfranchised by game-playing by Republicans in the legislature and by their own party (which could easily have scheduled a caucus for March once the DNC sanctioned the January primary). Ordinary people were told that in this big nomination race, they would have no vote. Plenty stayed home.

No, Clinton did nothing about this, and it is dishonest for her people to pretend that they alone stand for 'counting all votes' or that the result from yesterday isn't a huge improvement over the Clinton-approved status quo.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
22

I thought that Webb dealt with it wonderfully.

Yeah, me too. And given the way she edits, he probably handled it even better than the printed version shows.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
23

I think Emerson made a good point in the election thread yesterday when he said that this primary is arguably the most democratic in a long time, in terms of everyone getting to vote before the nominee is selected, etc. If only those racist/sexist bastards in Michigan and Florida hadn't poisoned the whole thing by breaking the rules!


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
24

22: "Bravo males" as an alternative to "alpha males" (jesus, what a bullshit concept, the way people toss it around) cracked me up. Webb makes me nervous on gender stuff, but he's certainly entertaining.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
25

I don't think it's mind control. There are a fair number of Clinton supporters who are genuinely outraged at the way she has been treated generally. You don't have to agree with them to recognize they have some grounds. They then attach this generalized outrage to whatever specific instance gets presented to them, even though, were they to take three minutes thought, they would see the specific instance isn't in fact outrageous.

"But thought is irksome and three minutes a long time."


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
26

There are a fair number of Clinton supporters who are genuinely outraged at the way she has been treated generally.

Sure. I wonder what these people think the fall would have been like.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
27

25: How is that not mind control? You take their legitimate grievances against how Clinton's been treated and attach it to some totally laughable specific grounds, and... they buy into it like they actually believe it.

TAPPED had a quote from someone who thought that Obama shouldn't be nominated because 'the party shouldn't nominate someone who gamed the system.' My head nearly exploded.


Posted by: NBarnes | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
28

TAPPED had a quote from someone who thought that Obama shouldn't be nominated because 'the party shouldn't nominate someone who gamed the system.' My head nearly exploded.

They're psychotics, but they're psychotics we need. I'm fine with Obama giving her healthcare, for example.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
29

Am I the only one who feels like this is a total replay of the Brooks Brothers Riot?


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
30

25.1 as an elaboration of 8.1.

I take it this is all a commentary on the DNC's rules committee finding yesterday (which I haven't kept up with since yesterday evening), and which I take it resulted in a 49-59 Obama/Clinton split, half a vote to each delegate, or whatever, that I last heard about. And Clinton supporters are talking about being disenfranchised. Okay, then, I'm up to speed.

People are having their minds controlled? Well, yes, generally, all of us, but we're complicit in it. Duh. (I've been reading about behavioral economics. And am beginning to sound like McManus with these nonsequiturs.)

For the situation at hand, I would imagine that people are particularly susceptible these days to taking up the "disenfranchised!" banner because they've felt for some time now generally impotent in the running of their country. It's a clever, or obvious, seed to plant.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
31

No, I've been thinking the same thing.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
32

29: That was actively staged (paid for) by the Republican party, wasn't it? Is this? Or is it rather spontaneous? Huh.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
33

I am constitutionally inclined to mock sloganeering around "disenfranchisement." Yet what do we think about Obama's opposition to the proposed Michigan re-vote? It seems clear that the reason Obama's camp opposed the Michigan re-vote was because it would help HRC. This seems like something a Michigan Clinton supporter might legitimately resent, no?


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
34

32: That's the key difference. The BB crowd was a bunch of political operatives playing at being crazy, but Clinton's protesters seem to be the real deal.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
35

Am I the only one who feels like this is a total replay of the Brooks Brothers Riot?

I know I've seen that idea before . . . in the comments here.

If this is Florida 2000, Hillary is playing the Bush role, complete with Brooks Brothers riot. I can hardly contain my joy at the idea of busloads of Clintonites descending on my neighborhood (well, a mile or so away).

Posted by KCinDC | May 26, 2008 10:37 PM


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
36

20 nails it. You do realize how this "Clinton supporters look batshit insane" from Obamabots looks to a sane objective observer, don't you?

Reality can only be a social consensus, although "reality" is really not a meanigful word. All tribal myths and bullshit, defended to the death sometimes.

It all looks crazy to me, but I am letting Mavis Staples control my mind toay. Respect Yourself this Brand New Day on the Dock of the Bay and She'll Take you there, brothers & sisters.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
37

30: Not quite. 8.1 is more general and I wouldn't call (some) Clinton supporter's feelings "inchoate." I think there's more a bad syllogism floating around:

The things that have been done to Clinton are outrageous.
This has been done to Clinton.
Therefore this is outrageous.


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
38

33:Yet what do we think about Obama's opposition to the proposed Michigan re-vote? It seems clear that the reason Obama's camp opposed the Michigan re-vote was because it would help HRC

Shhhh. Didn't happen.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
39

It seems clear that the reason Obama's camp opposed the Michigan re-vote was because it would help HRC. This seems like something a Michigan Clinton supporter might legitimately resent, no?

I don't know enough about it. What you've said could apply to re-vote in which any single vote for Clinton awarded her all of the delegates, irrespective of the number of votes won by Obama. (Cf. Gore getting cute on where to recount in FL in '00.) Obama's objection to the plan could have been made on reasonable unfairness grounds. It doesn't seem to matter to me. Once the DNC said not to count MI and FL, it seems settled to me. That established the baseline, and everything afterwards is strategic positioning and has little to do with fairness.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
40

36 -- McManus is exactly correct about Staples. Someone without a firewall ought to post a link to one of the YouTube versions of I'll Take You There.

38 -- Bonior was eloquent on this yesterday. I don't remember what Levin said about it.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
41

One of the YouTube versions of "I'll Take You There"

The audiences loves it.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
42

Now that's disturbing. It's a little hard to believe that there are no laws against parents effectively selling their children to the Disney Corporation.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
43

Once the DNC said not to count MI and FL, it seems settled to me.

My understanding is that this was not the outcome required by the party rules, and indeed may have been in conflict with them. In any event, one could have sought an outcome which was generally 'more democratic.' Obama's no fool, so he didn't want two revotes he would lose. And, as I want him as the nominee, I'm not too broken up about it. But if it looks like the triumph of hardball politics over principle, there's a reason for that...


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
44

Is there a comprehensive recap of the Florida/Michigan rules/events? A wiki article, maybe?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
45

There is!


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
46

one could have sought an outcome which was generally 'more democratic.'

Sure, but the problem is that no one agrees on what "more democratic" means (which is presumably why you put the words in scare quotes). The last time that there was a consensus about what to do was when all the campaigns signed off on ignoring FL and MI.

. But if it looks like the triumph of hardball politics over principle, there's a reason for that...

I'm not sure whether the conflict between hardball and principle is supposed to be internal to Obama (maybe, though I don't find it convincing), or between the campaigns (not at all a credible characterization of the circs to me).


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
47

OT:

That Kimbo Slice fight last night was the fixiest fix that ever was fixily fixed by fixy fixers of fixes.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
48

My understanding is that this was not the outcome required by the party rules, and indeed may have been in conflict with them.

What do you mean, baa? That outcome was obviously not *required* by party rules (given that the DNC has now reversed that decision in both cases, presumably under its discretionary decision-making power) -- but how would it have been in conflict with them?

Obviously, I don't know much about Dem. party rules, but the only way I can make this out would be if the National committee somehow doesn't have final authority over the State committees.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
49

The BB crowd was a bunch of political operatives playing at being crazy, but Clinton's protesters seem to be the real deal.

True, this is just the impressions of One Dude From The Internet but one of my blog friends who was down interviewing the protesters yesterday said that almost none of them he met were from MI or FL.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
50

I know. Were I a better blogger, I would have done first-person reporting for y'all, too, but it was raining.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
51

47 gets it right.

On the other hand, it was interesting and suspenseful to watch, unlike any of the couple dozen boxing matches I've watched over the years.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
52

51: True. They hired the wrong (or the right, if your cynicism runs deep) tomato can.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
53

The reason I think Clinton supporters look batshit insane is because they're taking disenfranchisement in MI/FL (debateable) and using that as the theme for their whole campaign. There was a Clinton protester quoted at the RBC meeting who said that what was happening in MI/FL was disenfranchising him. The problem was he was from Buffalo, NY.
Seen Clinton's latest ad? The current campaign theme is that if Hillary doesn't get to be the nominee, all of the people who voted for her are being disenfranchised.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
54

I think you have to be pretty much driven mad by propaganda to even take this notion of "disenfranchisement" in a nominating competition seriously in the first place. For example, I think roughly 50 of the states/territories were disenfranchised in the 2004 Democratic primary, after the winner was crowned well before Super Tuesday. You'd think the cries of "disenfranchisement" from, say, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, and Michigan, all of which had no role in choosing Kerry as the nominee, would have brought down the entire party edifice. But no, we entered 2008 presuming that just like the last couple of times, our lovably quirkly system would ensure that the winner would be known after New Hampshire, or at the very latest, after Super Tuesday.

Or that it would be happening right now in the Republican party, given that the winner of the nomination won on the basis of having gotten roughly 30% of the vote in about 10 states, giving him a bare plurality of the vote in more states than anyone else had received a bare plurality of the vote, thus forcing the other candidates who had received roughly 30% of the vote to drop out because of the intensely antidemocratic winner-take-all system.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
55

Yes, you can control people's minds. Indeed, your own mind is controlled, to an extent, by who you hang out with and talk to. How you view the world is incredibly socially conditioned.

Glad you're coming round on this concept, Ogged.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
56

Now that I've become enlightened, perhaps there's hope that one day you'll understand "eliding distinctions."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
57

54: There is precedent--look to Nader voters.

56: Oh, you wanted me to get into distinctions and nuance? I thought you hated it when I started thousand-comment threads?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
58

Report! Report! Attendez vous!

Spirituals & Gospels is a disaster, Mavis accompanied by only Lucky Peterson's Hammond B3 is nothing but depressing.

But Have a Little Faith, well, strikes me dumb. All I can do is cry.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
59

Obama just spoke on TV from the Mitchell, S.D. Corn Palace. This will be huge for the SD / MT Corn Place vote.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
60

It's not just the Corn Palace—it's The World's Only Corn Palace. One of my three favorite places in SD, along with Badlands NP and Harney Peak, highest point between the Rockies and the Alps.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
61

60:

"Clonezone the Hilariator, your Corn Palace is ready."

"But I ordered the Kremlin!"


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
62

I don't know much about Webb, but this cracked me up:

Why not just ignore your critics? You're a writer and you can ignore it. You can just say, "All right, I'm going to Trinidad for three weeks." But when you're running for office, you've got to show up every day and respond. It's a little different.

Yeah, Deborah Solomon! You can just go to Trinidad!


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
63

So the corn palace is only decorated with corn? I'm disappointed. I thought it was made of corn.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
64

South Dakota is America's Roadside Attraction. To the Badlands (over which I have flown in a roadside-attraction helicopter), the Corn Palace and Harney (OK, you have to leave your car for several hours for that one) add Mt. Rushmore and work-in-progress Sitting Bull, the Black Hills, Wall Drug, and at least one Laura Ingalls Wilder habitat (the setting of Little Farm on the Prairie, IIRC).

Pierre is nice, too.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
65

work-in-progress Sitting Bull

An atrocity. But the Black Hills are indeed lovely, and I found Mt. Rushmore surprisingly tasteful, for a sacrilege.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
66

The roadside-attraction helicopter was pretty awesome. If you ever find yourself driving down the road, when off to the side you should spy a hand-lettered sign offering 15-minute helicopter rides for $35, you should take that 15-minute ride. The helicopter in question was a little metal seating platform around a central column with a plexiglass bubble, so you could see directly downwards. Scary fun!


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
67

The badlands are great to spend a day in. Actually walking. On your feet. Sissies.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
68

puh-leeze. Like Obama supporters wouldn't be whining just as much if the shoe were on the other foot.

The Badlands are actually a great hiking park.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 5:07 PM
horizontal rule
69

We're whining enough with the shoe on this foot.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 5:09 PM
horizontal rule
70

The Mitchell Zoning commission forbid the use of structural corn. Little know facts of history.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
71

I won't believe you can control other people's minds until I can do it myself, using only a Nintendo Wii.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
72

Fatman's #54 gets to the heart of it. I've only ever lived in CA, OR, and WA, and this is one of the very, very few times my primary vote ever mattered at all. I have often complained about the folly of this, as I'd have liked to influence other primaries, but I never felt the kind of disenfranchisement rage and panic that I'm seeing on display here.

Maybe I should have, along with dozens of millions of others. What gets to me is the apparent feeling on the part of FL and MI voters this time that this is something radically strange, interfering with the normal operation of the primaries. I do believe their unfamiliarity with primary proceedings is being exploited by people who care not at all for the truth or falsity of their charges, only about their utility in the moment.


Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
73

As for Obama's reasons for refusing the Michigan re-vote, my understanding was that DNC rules would have barred anyone who voted in the Republican primary from voting. Obama's camp felt that since they:
-Drew a lot of support from independents
-Many independents went to vote for McCain in the Repub primary since they were told their votes in the Dem primary wouldn't count
this would be unfair to Obama (read give him less votes). He claimed that only a re-vote that allowed folks who had voted in the Repub primary to vote in the Dem one would be fair. The good people of the Michigan legislature agreed with him and the re-vote was called off. That's my understanding anyway.

As for mind control, ahem


Posted by: WillieStyle | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
74

I'm pretty sure that my vote for Obama was in one of those Harlem districts that ended up going 100% for Clinton, of account of some mishap with the voter rolls.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
75

73: OMFG, WS. That link. Oh my good God. Holy shit.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
76

65: Huh, I had the exact opposite feeling. I liked the Indian museum at the Crazy Horse thing, and while the museum at Mt. Rushmore was surprisingly okay, it was just so crowded and nutty.

It was kind of cool, though, to turn around in a big crowd and see a mountain goat standing like ten feet up on a cliff wall right next to the walkway.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 1-08 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
77

"When Republican supporters say things that sound like they're coming from an alternate reality, I figure that we have different priors and priorities, but when I hear it from Democrats, I realize again, holy shit, you can control people's minds."

Huh. When I hear ogged talk about the campaign, I don't figure that he has different priors and priorities than the majority of Democrats. I just figure that ogged is an idiot.


Posted by: Petey | Link to this comment | 06- 2-08 5:28 AM
horizontal rule
78

77: hah, that's such a funny coincidence! We all think that about you!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06- 2-08 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
79

78: Tweety is a member of the ogged.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 06- 2-08 7:22 AM
horizontal rule