Although Clinton will be nominated, and there will be a roll-call vote on her nomination, the two sides are still working out the mechanics of how that will happen, aides said. Clinton will not have enough delegates to win the nomination, which Obama will formally secure before delivering his acceptance speech on Thursday night.How can you be so sure? The nomination will be determined by the superdelegates, and they can do what they want.
ADDED: This news made me go reread Maureen Dowd's column from a couple days ago:
Obama ... allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters.” This, even though postmortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic — another move that undercuts Obama — finger Hillary’s horrendous management skills....Dampen the dreams of our daughters...
It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”
Those platform writers know about alliteration, but they don't notice the imagery.
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
And the Mayor of Detroit, with his electronic tether on, due to his bond violation, will be there as a superdelegate! Ah, America!
Me, I'm wanting full on chaos...good for ratings!
It is wishful thinking that the super delegates would change and vote for Hillary. That would alienate the AA community for at least a generation, and Hillary would go down to ignominious defeat. It is actually more likely that some "pledged" Hillary super delegates will change and vote for Obama.
Dangerous to give Hillary any manuever space.
It's all an already tiresome narrative.
Bring in Mayor Daley to maintain order, is my suggestion.
What are they THINKING?
Why do you give a consummately ambitious woman and her machine even the slightest hope? Would Hillary do this for Obama?
NEVER!
Cheers,
Victoria
Is there anyone at all with whom Obama has/had a long-term relationship who can safely be allowed out in public to speak at the convention? Other than Michelle, of course. Barely.
Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, will be the prime time speaker on the convention's opening day, which will focus on Obama's life story. Other speakers include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama's older brother.
Yeppers, that's a bunch of folks from his past, like, maybe, last week mostly. I guess the answer to the question is, "No, they all disappeared under the o-BA-ma bus."
Answer: If Bill and Hillary were in Obama's position, they'd step on his throat.
Period.
Another good indication he's not ready.
One bad "news" report just before the convention and ....
Jeesh Democrats are such assholes. To them , it is all about symbols and gestures.
Why don't the Kucinich and Edwards supporters get a bit of recognition?
I bet the Kucinich supporters would agree to wear Star Trek garb to the convention and the Edwards supporters could wear buttons that said "I Supported John Edwards- he got screwed and we did too".
Obam is a fool for allowing this. I have said over and over not to count the Clintons out. Losing is not losing to them, it is an opportunity to steal. This is nothing but a dirty trick to snatch the nomination. If Florida and Michigan seat their delegates, Obama will be the biggest fool in the world. He has not learned the most important of the Clinton Crime Family Rules- Never, ever, trust a Clinton.
This just goes to show how dysfunctional the Democratic Party is. They have to supposedly honor the loser to make her win. Any bets on who Hillary's VP is going to be HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Go ahead. Not one of Obama's pledged OR superdelegates has shown any inclination to switch and vote for Clinton.
I've been reading to my kids the other out of the Canterbury Tales, and the other night we read the widow's tale. She told the tale of one of King Arthur's knights who went on a quest to learn what it is that women desired most. After hearing hundreds of answers and feeling none of them was right, he was on his way back to the castle (not wanting to be late for his execution for not finding the answer within a year) when he chanced upon an old hag. She gave him the answer "to have their way in everything," but only after he had to promise to marry her in exchange for the answer. The story ends well, in fact-- very well.
I believe that Obama has showed some wisdom here. Hillary wants a roll call. Let her have it. In the end the story could end well for Obama too.
Ah! What thrill await us?
finger Hillary
dampen dreams (aka wet dreams)
Sure we aren't talking about some Ernest Borgnine like activities?
Obama, moistening the panties of liberal political thinkers since 2004 . . .
I hate what the left has done to the word "celebrate". It used to be a perfectly good word. But now it means "to pay disingenuous homage".
aj lynch (from an asshole, thank you very much):
Kucinich delegates are free to vote for him (and both of them might.) Edwards formally released his 26 delegates in May. They might still vote for him but several have since stated their support for Obama. I don't think any have indicated that they plan to vote for Clinton.
There is a qualitative difference between Clinton and Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, et al. The difference is that Clinton showed that she had a lot of support both within and outside the Democratic party. So it would be foolish for Obama not to recognize the historic nature of her candidacy.
And by the way it is historic. Not only is she the first woman to be a real contender for a major party nomination, but it highlights the fact that Democrats have done a far far better job than Republicans in showing they are willing to support female candidates. Democratic women outnumber Republican women 11-4 in the Senate (with Jeanne Shaheen likely to make it 12-4 by next year), by a similar margin among state Governors, and until the special elections earlier this year expanded the Democratic majority in the House, the entire Democratic majority in Congress was composed of women (there were an equal number of men, but Democratic women in Congress outnumbered Republican women in the House about 50-20-- including the Speaker.) So yes, Clinton's candidacy was historic and there is nothing wrong with recognizing it.
That's great, Eli. Nice allusion. But wrt reading Chaucer to your kids, what do you do with the Wife of Bath? Baw-dy, no?
Eli:
I was not referring to rank & file Dems like you just your fearless leaders.
You forgot to add that Dems have shown a greater preference than Republicans for supporting & running bazillionaires for the Senate. I don't need to list them for you do I? Dems have perfected the art of selling Senate seats to the richest bidder.
This situation reminds me slightly of Adlai E. Stevenson's decision to allow the convention to choose his VP for him.
As AJ said, it's always about symbols and gestures with the Democrats -- in this case, about being seen as less top-down in authority, and therefore being more "democratic" about it.
Well, it turns out that when they were calling on the delegates, the guy with the gavel recognising each State had been screwed over by Bobby Kennedy. Or at least, that's how the historians later told it.
Instead of recognising a sure-fire Kennedy State who had pledged all their votes to the youthful Senator, he searched around the room for pledged Kefauver delegates.
He recognised them first, and from them on, Kefauver instantly had momentum. Kennedy lost.
And who does Stevenson of Illinois, that wiry intellectual whose speaking style was soaring oratory, but who sneered at his fellow Americans for their provincialism, remind you of?
This is why the Democrats lose time and time again.
You know, they say nice guys finish last. That's not true.
It's the guys who are not always necessarily nice, but want people to think they are being nice at a given occasion, who finish last.
Cheers,
Victoria
Yeah, alliteration is good. Dampen the dreams of our daughters is nicer than wee on wetdreams of women.
trevor--thanks for the link to the debate commission; I totally missed that one.
Oh bloody wow! Playtex is running an ad (the volume is off) with three women with large breasts wearing bras talking about the benefits of Playtex for women with large breasts. One of the women is apparently deaf and her sign language is graphic as all hell broken open. This is now my favorite ad on mute.
The deaf chick said something about her breast flopping out at night not happening. ??? She wears a bra to sleep? I must watch this again.
She wears a bra to sleep?
Yeah, some women do. Especially women of a certain age, i.e., 60-80 year olds.
Brassieres the way we know them today didn't come into being until the 1920s. Before that, women wore corsets (or as upper-class British women called them, "stays").
Some women also wear unders when they sleep.
I refrain from both customs.
Cheers,
Victoria
Eli Blake said...
So it would be foolish for Obama not to recognize the historic nature of her candidacy…
… And by the way it is historic. Not only is she the first woman to be a real contender for a major party nomination, but it highlights the fact that Democrats have done a far far better job than Republicans in showing they are willing to support female candidates.
Clinton’s race was historic in only one aspect; out of all of the actual qualified women- from both parties- she was the first totally unqualified woman to be a contender for the nomination. Unless of course you really do believe her autobiography; the only record of her so called thirty years in public service.
XWL said...
Ah! What thrill await us?
finger Hillary...
No thanks. Not in my wildest nightmare. There is not even enough booze in the world. That would be a sane mans worst nightmare. Probably most sane women too.
Moisten the mirages of our maidens.
It would be incredibly stupid for the Democrats to turn around and pick Hillary.
Remember she is the one who blew a 26 point lead. I'd rather have the candidate who came from 26 points down, thank you very much.
And to underscore the point, consider a post up today at fivethirtyeight:
This is malpractice. Clinton National Field Director Guy Cecil's January 19 internal memo discussing February 5th's congressional districts and the threshold numbers for gaining or defending the gain of an extra delegate is replete with error..
Fivethirtyeight then goes into a specific breakdown of the specific errors.
All I can say is that as a Democrat I'm glad that we dodged this bullet. God Forbid that we had such an inept campaign trying to win in November.
I might also add that Obama showed that he is willing to take a risk and made the right call at a key point in his campaign. His South Carolina team did a great job and won their primary by a huge margin. The conventional wisdom upon discovering such a talented team would be to either keep them together and send them to a February 5th (Super-Duper Tuesday) state (about a week away) or break the team up and farm them out to the various Super-Duper Tuesday states to try and replicate the magic in a week.
Obama did neither. He gambled that Hillary couldn't land a knockout blow that day (as she did not) and sent them, as a team to Virginia. This kept them out of action on Feb. 5 but had him set up to win big in the next important primary after Feb. 5. He did win big in Virginia and Hillary didn't recover for almost a month-- and then she was like all those French swimmers trying to catch Michael Phelps. Good luck with that.
Gutty call-- and it won Obama the nomination.
So if I'm a superdelegate I have to go with Obama just based on how he and how Hillary ran their respective campaigns.
Eli
Don't forget to renew your NOW membership.
mcg
I think it's 35 years of "experience", but who's counting. On the other hand, if one were to include all the time spent vacuuming knee impressions out of the office carpet...
Clinton’s race was historic in only one aspect; out of all of the actual qualified women- from both parties- she was the first totally unqualified woman to be a contender for the nomination.
And yet she lapped the entire Republican field and is arguably the most powerful women in politics today - while you pound sand on blogger.
Say what you want about her campaign, she smoked him good 8 out of the last 13 contests - the same time period Obama received all the superdelegates that put him over the top. Will of the people and all...
It comes down to this: A white woman and a black man applied for the same job. After the interviews were over, the hiring committee awarded the job to the black man, even though he had a bit less experience than the white woman.
The white woman, her husband, her daughter, and some of her friends, all of whom believe that she was jobbed by the hiring committee, are demanding that she be given an opportunity to play a prominent role on the black man's first day on the job, perhaps in a none-to-subtle effort to get the hiring committee to reverse its decision.
Welcome to the world of affirmative action.
"Dampen the dreams of our daughters"? Hillary seems primarily the mothers' dream. The daughters seem content to be dampened in other ways by Barack.
Hilarious. The Clinton sideshow erupts into prime time, in the middle of the coronation of Obama, detracting attention from him for no conceivable purpose other than to advance her. She's not even running for anything, at least not officially. For him, nothing good can come of this, which is undoubtedly what she wants.
Her speech (and Bill's) will be the most interesting part of the DNC -- much more so than his extravaganza before the 70,000 in the stadium. The whole thing will be quite a contrast to the RNC. When it's all done, I suspect the net effect will be to make McC look normal and sensible compared to the wildly inflated egos soon to be on display in Denver.
And yet she lapped the entire Republican field and is arguably the most powerful women in politics today...
I did not know she was running as or against a Republican. I thought she was running as and against her fellow Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in politics today. Hillary is a neophyte compared to Ms. Pelosi. There are others who make Hillary look like a new born babe in the woods. Hillary, after the convention, will be a has been.
I may pound sand, but your head is so far up your ass you need ten proctologists and a tow truck to get it out.
Wrest the woolgathering of our women.
To honor and celebrate the voices and votes of the primaries
Gack. Who writes that tripe? Why not just write Because we think this might be a good idea that gets lots of press, which would be the truth.
Barak the Magic Negro
A true dull normal he,
Take away the teleprompter
He's a monkey up a tree.
"To honor and celebrate the voices and votes of the primaries"
They are doing it because if the don't they will certainly piss off a bunch of die hard Hillary voters and delegates who will see dismissing her out of hand without even a 'chance' to cast their votes. The fact is that Hillary has almost half of the delegates and I believe (?) was actually ahead in the popular vote. To ignore this is a complete slap in the face to Hillary and her supporters and they should rightly be indignant about it and rightly take it as sexism.
The uncertainty which the Obama campaign faces is that there is a very slim chance that Hillary might actually pull it off on the convention floor. Unlikely, but by taking this chance it might be that some of Hillary's supporters will be molified.
It's a chess gambit.
they should rightly be indignant about it and rightly take it as sexism.
Why is it sexist? Do you suppose he wouldn't be doing this if Hillary! were a male?
It strikes me as politics as usual.
Why is it sexist? Do you suppose he wouldn't be doing this if Hillary! were a male?
What I mean is that in any other circumstances when two candidates come to the convention with an almost 50/50 split of delegates and of the popular vote, (not where one has an overwhelming majority over the other) there would be no question that an initial floor vote would be conducted.
But because these circumstances are not politics as usual..... a black man vs a woman... to NOT hold a floor vote would be sexist against Hillary. If it were Hillary who had the slight lead and her group decided to shut down the black man's delegates by not holding a floor vote, you can bet your ass that the charges of racism would be flying all over the place and I would agree.
The best analysis of the primary I saw was:
Clinton treated the primary process as a job interview (see her debte performances which were generally better than anyone imagined they'd be).
Obama treated it as a date (see his unmatched ability to work a crowd that's on his side).
The question is will voters want a second date in November? I don't know. His performance in the last period of the primary contest was pretty uninspiring.
I think the debates will make or break Obama. He hasn't exactly shone in debates so far, how did McCain do?
MadisonMan said...
To honor and celebrate the voices and votes of the primaries
Gack. Who writes that tripe? Why not just write Because we think this might be a good idea that gets lots of press, which would be the truth.
You don’t get it do you? The Democrats have to celebrate everything. Instead of just saying this makes sense to us, or this is what Hillary wants and we do what she says, they have to celebrate the voices and the votes blah, blah, blah. These people are so deep into New Age mumbo jumbo that one does not have to smell their breath to know their heads are up their anal sphincters.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
They are doing it because if the don't they will certainly piss off a bunch of die hard Hillary voters and delegates who will see dismissing her out of hand without even a 'chance' to cast their votes.
They are doing it because Bill and Hillary want it done. There is no other reason. They gave her a night to herself to give a loser speech- the equivalent of a keynote and that was not enough. Hillary must be adored, admired, worshipped, and if all goes according to the Clinton plan, hopefully nominated; knocking that little Black kid on his behind. Whatever the Clintons want they get; any way they can.
I would agree.
Me too.
And that's exactly what she would do, thus further alienating the black demographic.
A lot of the pro-Obama vote in the black community has to do with some kind of resentment of Bill Clinton, which media were completely unaware of, considering their constant refrain that he's considered "America's First Black President", in Morrison's phrase.
This is a classic mistake in racial politics: because a black person said it, it must be true, and therefore it is legitimate for non-blacks to use it and to think it is true. No one bothered to poll others if they agreed with it or not...
Clearly, a lot of African-Americans resented Clinton's cynical usage of the black community for his own ends. The anti-Hillarism is spill-over from that sentiment.
He hasn't exactly shone in debates so far, how did McCain do?
From my anti-McCain vantage point during the primaries, passable.
He kept glaring at Romney like a jock on scholarship who absolutely loathes the pretty-boy QB -- a rich man's son who got the job because his daddy paid for the school's new pool.
But he give off the impression he was in command of his facts, and most importantly, had gravitas when it counted.
Romney was excellent. Not only providing clear-cut responses, but using his business mentality to cut through the personal attacks and get to the point.
Cheers,
Victoria
garage mahal said...
And yet she lapped the entire Republican field and is arguably the most powerful women in politics today…
Are you trying to say what I think you are saying?
That she did to the Republican field what Monica did to Bill?
If Obama loses the bid for POTUS, there will be a lot of fingers pointed at the Clintons from the Democrats.
Michael_H: It comes down to this: A white woman and a black man applied for the same job. After the interviews were over, the hiring committee awarded the job to the black man, even though he had a bit less experience than the white woman.
The white woman, her husband, her daughter, and some of her friends, all of whom believe that she was jobbed by the hiring committee, are demanding that she be given an opportunity to play a prominent role on the black man's first day on the job, perhaps in a none-to-subtle effort to get the hiring committee to reverse its decision.
Welcome to the world of affirmative action.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving demographic. I hope they choke on it.
But you didn't identify which employee[s] will be forced to shoulder the additional workload of the incompetent AA hire. Some poor Secretary of State? Or Joe Public?
Is there no one in the Obama circle of advisors who can say NO to the Clintons?
Oh wait. The Obama circle of advisors were all formerly in the Clinton circle of advisors.
Trojan horses.
MCG
A Monica joke. That's pretty fresh. Talking about Bill Clinton's cock never gets old to you does it? And neither does your schizophrenic Clinton disorder apparently.
Wow, what is up with the negative comments on Althouse today? It's giving off a very bad vibe.
Catch you all later...
Cheers,
Victoria
vbspurs - A lot of the pro-Obama vote in the black community has to do with some kind of resentment of Bill Clinton, which media were completely unaware of, considering their constant refrain that he's considered "America's First Black President", in Morrison's phrase.
This is a classic mistake in racial politics: because a black person said it, it must be true, and therefore it is legitimate for non-blacks to use it and to think it is true. No one bothered to poll others if they agreed with it or not...
Clearly, a lot of African-Americans resented Clinton's cynical usage of the black community for his own ends. The anti-Hillarism is spill-over from that sentiment.
No, it had to do with blacks, in a pattern of racial/tribal loyalty they have displayed since getting the vote - siding with skin color instead of by the candidate's record.
They see black skin, they cast their vote that way in any Democratic Primary, by a 90-10 vote. The pattern is only broken when their "reverends" and "community activists" inform them that they must vote for the white Dem against the black Republican "Uncle Tom".
Obama's being half-black was enough to give him the black vote 88-12 over white candidates with solid records on welfare state black's political demands. And with blacks demographically concentrated in the Democratic Party (11% of US population, 34% of Dem delegates) - Barack started with a big racial advantage. Maintain the huge black racial bias in voting, lose every other group 40-60 or so, and Barack would have still won the nomination.
========================
vbspurs - I agree with her on this - He kept glaring at Romney like a jock on scholarship who absolutely loathes the pretty-boy QB -- a rich man's son who got the job because his daddy paid for the school's new pool.
McCain also had lots of money (but in his wife's hands) and was only able to tap her for some campaign loans. A little resentment, but most of McCain's schtick was that he was entitled, dammit!.
He suffered as a POW and has milked that for political gain half his life, he ran against Bush. It was HIS turn, like it was Bob Dole's turn!
Unfortunately, unlike Dems who tend to write off losers, Republicans give past losers "bonus points" in future primaries.Romney wiped the floor with him in debates, but was doomed by events. Romney pandered too much, he faced religious bias, suffered in a 3 way split of conservatives against McCain. In Althouse's language, Romney also suffered from from being too nice, to overeager for a date from Republicans that want the "bad boy." Finally, Romney was killed off by the Republicans stupidly making several large states that don't vote for a Republican President but love "rebel Republicans that stiff Republican efforts" -NY, NJ - winner take all as a SOP to the hapless "Mr 9/11's" fundraising in earlier years.
Dowd:
…Hillary was busy planning her convention.
“Now they’ve made Barry’s convention all about them…”
“She said she wanted it for Chelsea…
“Bill continues to howl at the moon…
“Some Democrats wish that Obama had told the Clintons to “get in the box” or get lost if they can’t show more loyalty…
“... dampen the dreams of our daughters.”
Hillary has been planning her convention from day one. She was not going to let a liite thing like a lack of delegates, cheating by Michigan and Florida, and actually blowing a quarter billion dollars stop her from being the anointed one. She will be President.
Everything is always about the Clintons. She even, once again, pimped Chelsea- I want if for my baby…BAH! Bill is an animal and will howl about unfairness as he has always done. Obama should have told Hillary, the day after she conceded, to get lost. “Go back and to the Senate and be the second string Senator from NY, where you belong.” As to dampening the dreams of our daughters; the Clintons can pimp their daughter and put on the street like a ho all they want. Leave the rest of our daughters out if it.
After this fiasco, I am starting to think that Obama’s major flaw is he too stupid and too nice. He is turning into the political version of Forrest Gump.
I think it will be a miracle if the Dems pull it together in Denver.
Hey maybe this can be the Messiah's first miracle- the miracle of the fishes and bicycles!
Don't leave so soon Vicky. We are having a lot of fun over at the Ernest Borgnine thread.
You just have to pick the right topics.
It's a lot more fun to talk about wanking that to talk about wankers.
Of either party.
Since no one else has said anything: do they really mean "damp the dreams of our daughters" rather than dampen?
It's two different verbs meaning two different things.
A damp dream of course has two meanings.
The other kind is Barack induced, I guess.
Dream on, daughters.
Why do you give a consummately ambitious woman and her machine even the slightest hope? Would Hillary do this for Obama?
Of course not because she's a racist. Bill Clinton would though because he's not a racist. His offices are in Harlem you know.
If this was a Looney Tunes cartoon, and I'm not saying it isn't, I'd set the scene with Obama as Daffy Duck and Hillary as Bugs Bunny both starving on a desert island and all they see one another as is a chicken leg waiting to be cooked.
If somehow Hillary pulls this out of her cootch, Bush will have to do an immediate withdrawal from Iraq just to put down the insurgency that will begin here.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper
How much you want to bet this guy got the shit beat out of him daily in grade school.
Some women also wear unders when they sleep.
I refrain from both customs.
Thanks for that. I just fell off my chair and cut my forehead. I think I need stitches.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper
How much you want to bet this guy got the shit beat out of him daily in grade school.
High School and College too.
Hoosier Daddy said...
If somehow Hillary pulls this out of her cootch, Bush will have to do an immediate withdrawal from Iraq just to put down the insurgency that will begin here.
Hey, it could be Chicago 1968 Redux.
Hillary can win you know. It's her turn to wear the damp panties in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Damp Underpants.
Silda Spitzer, Dina Mcgreevy and Elizabeth Edwards will be cheering her on. Just sayn'
MCG, they're way ahead of you. Behold: Recreate 68.
On another blog, I read that the protesters are scared of police using a Brown Note device, which would cause immediate loss of bowel control.
Defecate 68 has a really nice sound to it.
@Troop: Heh. Borgnine, eh?
That's right, Hoosier Class Daddy Guy. Well-put.
Why do the Democrats insist on hanging the concepts of Racism and Sexism on themselves. They don't even realize they're doing it. Really, that will be a big reason why I don't vote for either Obama or Clinton - their obtuseness to their own uses of bigotry. They and their supporters talk the post racial post gender talk but in the end they can't walk the walk because they have two left feet stuck all over with big clods of racism and sexism.
My own theory is that they were not well-fathered. And that, sadly, brings us back to John Edwards.
garage (of course) said...
[Hillary} is arguably the most powerful women in politics today
Now you're dampening the dreams of Nancy Pelosi!
This is who Ann Althouse aligns herself with.
Revolting and disgusting.
I didn't realize that embracing the gay-bashing hatemongers and racists of the Republican Party was now considered edgy performance art. Whatever it takes to be a wingnut diva, eh?
Indeed.
If somehow Hillary pulls this out of her cootch, Bush will have to do an immediate withdrawal
and the "imagery" just keeps coming. (No pun intended)
and the "imagery" just keeps coming.
Speaking of which, NBC Channel 6 in SoFla just broadcast a new McCain ad (new to me anyway).
"The Original Maverick", but with a very soft, almost lulling voice-over.
I think it's a winner.
recreate '68? I'm all for it. That means republicans win.
chickenlittle said...
recreate '68? I'm all for it. That means republicans win.
I wonder if they will let Chicago cops go to Denver to celebrate the forty year anniversary. it is only fair. They let Hillary hijack the convention. I mean just think of the publicity. Chicago cops beating protesters, reporters, and politicians. You know a realistic recreation kind of thing.
Anniversaries are really great and should be celebrated.
Meade said...
My own theory is that they were not well-fathered. And that, sadly, brings us back to John Edwards.
Hee, Hee,
And we know he is well fathered. He fathered Hunter's baby.
Jess - thanks for that. I was going to mention it, as that is a pet peeve of mine, along with RPMs, alot, misused homonyms, and so on. But I get tired of trying to explain that if one doesn't damp one's enthusiasm, dampness may result. Sorting it all out is a big task. Hard job. Requires both hands. In an Obama salute.
That means republicans win.
Without a doubt.
Frankly, I like when Code Pink and others go nuts during their protests, stand up and hector politicians during addresses, put on their pink bras and undies on the outside, etc.
The public cannot help but to compare this Code Pink activist's bizarre behaviour to Condi Rice's exemplary dignity.
It makes our side look better.
Recreate 68? Oh hell yeah!
"And we know he is well fathered. He fathered Hunter's baby."
Holy crap, Fred Dyer had a sex change.
Damn I have to watch Access Hollywood more often.
Trooper,
I have a question for you. It is a thorny problem that has stumped wise men throughout the ages. It is a problem the monists, dualists, and pluralists wrestled with. Aesthetics tried to deal with it. Disciples of Socrates and Aristotle tried to understand the impact of it. Skepticists, rationalists, and empiricists struggled with it. Pragmatists, existentialists, and phenomenologists spent years trying to delve into the mysteries of it.
Hermeneutics, structuralists, and poststructuralists tried to find the answer and are still seeking it. Realists and nominalists continue the quest for the answer.
The question is so elegant in its simplicity, yet yearns for a cogent and logical answer.
Should a man eat fish tacos?
The '80s were good to TY. Even if he gets 'em mixed up with the '70s from time-to-time.
I got so confused when MSNBC reported this. (We were watching Olympic shenanigans.) They said it would lead to party unity.
Huh?
How does extending the competition for the nomination do that? So, I guess this is just a symbolic vote?
Why would that placate anybody?
A man of the world should always consume his fish taco with enthusiasm and verve.
If he expects his partner to indulge in the hard salami.
Unless of course you are married to Ethel Merman.
Then you should confine youself to videos and the internet.
You will live longer and be a lot happier.
Just ask your Uncle Ernie. (Not the wicked one, the happy 92 year old one).
Should a man eat fish tacos?
I'm having some later tonight. Tastes like chicken to me. I should know.
Now that's funny.
The first rule of fish is: If it smells like the ocean, it's okay to eat. In tacos or otherwise.
The second rule of fish is: If it reminds you of Ethel Merman, skip lunch that day.
The third rule of fish is: Vegetarians have considerably less fun.
The fourth rule of fish is: Never talk about fish taco club. Never.
A fish taco club?
Damn. I never thought about putting bacon lettuce and tomato on it. Cool.
Finding mayo on a fish taco - that'd be a big turnoff.
Ditto ketchup.
I knew this dude who swore on his mother's grave that he loved his fish taco with ketchup. Said he had an iron deficiency.
I think he had a mental deficiency. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I don't think Sen Barney Franks ever enjoyed a fish taco.
Now Sonny Bono, there was a guy who liked fish tacos so much he opened a restaurant.
"loved his fish taco with ketchup"
aka earning red wings
Barney Frank is not a "sen" or senator. He is in the house and he is fucking funny. He is always voted by the entire house the funniest and smartest house member. I said member.
Lesbians love fish tacos.
I had some fish tacos in my youth when I was experimenting. They always smelled like anchovies and I tended to throw up.
And who really gives a shit about all of this Clinton and Obama crap when there are fish tacos all over this world to be eaten and loved.
OK, I admitted I experimented in my youth and had fish tacos.
Which one of you will admit that you had a brat in your youth when you were drunk or not drunk.
Once, in grad school, I was part of a small study group. After hours of study we knocked back a few glasses of wine.
I had fish tacos, and moon pie for dessert.
No brats, though.
Titus What's that on your Head A Wig? said...
Barney Frank is not a "sen" or senator. He is in the house and he is fucking funny.
Or is he funny fucking?
Titus What's that on your Head A Wig? said...
And who really gives a shit about all of this Clinton and Obama crap when there are fish tacos all over this world to be eaten and loved.
Titus wins the best comment of the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't want to think of Barney Frank fucking.
Funny yes, attractive absolutely not.
He represents Newton and Brookline Mass which are fabulous areas of Boston. Very jewish and rich-a combination you can not beat.
FYI-I learned on the other thread that eating a fish taco is considered sodomy. Just be careful.
Here's a fun fact for ya Titus.
It's often not included in the definition of sodomy.
The law tends to be more preoccupied with male activity.
Michael_H said...
I don't think Sen Barney Franks ever enjoyed a fish taco.
Now Sonny Bono, there was a guy who liked fish tacos so much he opened a restaurant.
Oh, yeah? Then why was Sonny Bono's last meal a mouthful of tree bark?
I not only never had a fish taco, until I came to Althouse I didn't even know they existed.
I know, it's just a stage.
Then there's normal feminine moistness, whatever the word is for that, and menstruation, and adult incontinence . . . what they meant to say was damp the dreams of our daughters, or is it damp down? Tamp down? Oops, tampon . . .
the miracle of the fishes and bicycles!
That's very funny.
garage mahal: A Monica joke. That's pretty fresh. Talking about Bill Clinton's cock never gets old to you does it?
Why do you think anyone would find sexual discrimination and harassment titillating? Projecting again? No doubt you get off by reading the local ER's rape reports.
amba said...
the miracle of the fishes and bicycles!
That's very funny.
Yes, and so was damp down tamp down tampon.
It will be as if the entire Dem Party will finally be getting its period - one big cathartic celebration of women hear them roar - still embryos with long, long ways to go until they make their Obama brother understand.
Meade - well, I suppose it seems a reasonable prediction of the convention that there will be blood.
Why do you think anyone would find sexual discrimination and harassment titillating? Projecting again? No doubt you get off by reading the local ER's rape reports.
What does sexual discrimination and harassment have to do with Lewinsky?
garage mahal said...
"What does sexual discrimination and harassment have to do with Lewinsky?"
There's a school of thought that holds that relationships between a male superior and female subordinates in a work environment is functionally coercive (and thus harassment) even when on the surface it's consensual.
It doesn't matter which sex is superior or subordinate. If garage mahal had been one of the White House interns not favored by the superior, not given special help on his career advancement from the superior's special friend, Vernon Jordan, he might very well know what sexual discrimination had to do with Lewinsky. And consent has nothing to do with it. Responsibility belongs to the superior alone.
Tampon.
Tampoff.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा