That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.
OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. Republicans weren't going to get the black vote anyway. The main reason to seem friendly to black voters is to reassure white female voters (or so I think Rove said). But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters, whom they currently win by (I think) 10%, as attacking Obama on race-related dog whistle grounds. Even K-Lo gets irritated by some of the gender related HRC-bashing, and occassionally gets frustrated by the lack of Republican female politicians.
I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
This isn't making me change my mind, but this is the first argument for Clinton vs. Obama that has made any sense at all to me. What do you guys think?
Overall I still say that since Clinton is stronger with the dem base, and Obama is stronger with independents, he's a better candidate in the general election since the base is going to vote for whoever the dem nominee is anyway, while the independents can easily break the other way (or just split or just stay home) if it's Clinton.
Has anyone been to Pure on Irving Place? Skinny? What did you think?
I kind of want to go check it out...
http://nymag.com/nymetro/food/reviews/restaurant/9670/
Pretty funny I think. And as an early iPhone buyer (pre-cost reduction) I can relate:
http://www.viralvideochart.com/youtube/mad_tv__ipod_nano_feist_1234_commercial?id=2i32NkW0s94
i thought it might be airing just locally but it looks like its national. finally the jews in america get the gauzy lens treatment from pbs with a six hour mini-doc. what, they couldnt afford ric burns? steven spielberg was too busy? how could he turn his back on his people?
African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.
The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and much to do with climate and economy.
The part that caught my eye was the comment about neither blu-ray nor hd-dvd winning the format war. It will be all about downloads. It would be a shame if the video disc goes the way of the dodo. There is absolutely no form of video available to consumers that is anywhere near the quality of a well-mastered high def digital disc. Until we get fat pipes like they have in Korea, downloads will be much lower bit rate, and visibly lower quality.
If enough people get big ass displays, which will allow the average consumer to see the difference, physical media may retain a foothold.
great for pancake sunday mornings! (and smoothies)
i only caught the tail end of the dems debate last night because i didnt realized there was one. but i did see stephanopoulos and sawyer call this hillarys worst moment and josh marshall posits that it was either an impassioned or enraged response depending on your point of view. i see it as a marginally honest assessment wrapped in cherry picked factoids. noone is willing to completely come out and say that the notion of "change" is campaign rhetoric. who the hell isnt for change? only those who wish to "stay the course." its pretty much an either or proposition. what you plan to do to effect change is all that matters not that you are for change. that said, i dont see how anyone could view hillarys response as anything but impassioned. now is not the time for sitting on your hands and modulating your response so as not to ruffle the heathers feathers.
some unnamed visitor didnt know who jane wyman was, or that she was ronald reagans first wife back when he was a new deal democrat. tcm has a bloc of wyman today celebrating her birthday. the movie she and reagan met on is playing now on tcm, brother rat, also starring a young eddie albert.
couple of hollywood-style lsd counterculture inspired flicks late night on tcm. skiddoo and the love-ins.