Nate Silver of 538 writes about Hillary hypotheticals, regarding how she may have performed in the general election. The article was spurred by an analysis of exit polls by CBS, which determined that Hillary would’ve won by an 11-point margin (as opposed to Obama’s 7-point margin).
Streetsblog, a blog about streets and roads (I like weird stuff), made a post about a reason to like Rahm Emanuel. A quote of his that I really liked:
“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”
This is a really interesting way of looking at it that I never though of before. Normally, people are afraid of change, because they’re afraid of things going bad. But when things are already bad, people are more open to it. Bush used this in 2003 to start the Iraq war*. Maybe Obama can use it for something more constructive.
*Note: I do not believe that Bush had any ill intentions in starting the war in Iraq, but I do believe he took advantage of the situation to bypass sanity checks and get done what he felt was right. When a person does something like this, they are deserving of any praise they get for being a visionary, but equally deserving of any criticism they get for being a reckless idiot.
The American Conservative, a conservative blog that is generally very intelligent (even though I usually have different views than it), disappointed me today. A quote from an article called “Why McCain Lost” by Patrick Buchanan:
Consider. In California, where a liberal judiciary had ordered the state to recognize homosexual marriages, voters, by 52 to 48, slapped the judges across the face and ordered the ban reimposed and placed in the California constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to outlaw gay marriage, by landslides.
The New York Times deplored the “ugly outcome” of these three referenda and said voters were “enshrining bigotry,” thus calling the majority of Californians, Arizonans, and Floridians bigots and their Bible-rooted Christian beliefs nothing but bigotry.
Good to know what they think of us.
Yes. If your beliefs include the idea that it is okay to deny other law-abiding human beings the same rights that you have, then yes, at least some of your beliefs are bigotry. And if a state votes en-masse in line with those beliefs, then yes, the majority of that state’s people (or at least, its voters) are bigots.
“McCain is in a good position to win every red state … Plus he is probably going to win Pennsylvania and Iowa.” – McCain advisor Charlie Black, Nov. 2, 2008
Now that Ohio is projected for Obama, he’s our new president. If you don’t believe me, go to fivethirtyeight.com or electoral-vote.com and add up the states that he’s GUARANTEED to win. You’ll see what I mean.
I’ve been reading the Hillary Clinton Forum for a long time – since back in April in fact. It’s the breeding ground for “PUMA”s – Democrats who were so completely devoted to Hillary Clinton, that they’re now more anti-Obama than the racists you see on those videos (despite Hillary’s pleas).
Today, Barack Obama’s grandmother died. A post was made on the Hillary Clinton Forum, titled *** “Obama’s Grandmother has died” – Condolences Only!*******. To give you all an idea of what these people are like, and what “condolences” really mean to them, here are a few choice quotes:
“And now we may never know the truths she held. In any case, I offer prayers for the peaceful repose of her soul and prayers for those of her relatives who might have actually loved her.” – Julianne Barbato
Andrew Sullivan just published a post titled “Barack Obama For President”. For the first time in a long time (possibly ever), it caused me to send a mass-email to most of my friends and family. In the interest of not wasting my time, I will just repost the email here:
Hey everyone,
I don’t normally send out big emails with political stuff, so please trust that this one is important.I just read one of the most powerful articles I’ve ever read. It’s by a guy named Andrew Sullivan. He’s a columnist and blogger for The Atlantic (an awesome political magazine). I’ve been reading his blog for a long time. He’s a conservative; he believes in flat taxes over progressive, he wants less power for unions, etc., but he’s been for Obama for a long time, due to his disgust with the Bush administration and with the way McCain has run his campaign. He just posted this article, and I believe it is the pinnacle of what I’ve read from him:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/barack-obama-fo.html
I found it to be absolutely incredible, because he endorses Barack Obama in completely understandable terms and without falling back on party lines (“McCain is just more of the same”) or cliched phrases (“It’s time for a change”). Most importantly, he admits that he disagrees with Obama on multiple core issues, but that they are worth putting off for the greater good.
Everyone I’ve sent this to is a democrat and is already voting for Obama in the election. While I think you would be doing yourself a big disservice if you didn’t read it, I understand that you already agree with him, and may have better things to do than read it. However, if you know any Republicans or independents, particularly in swing states, I’d urge you to send this to them. I believe that Andrew Sullivan’s conservative stance and logical explanations may actually sway a few people, and that’s something I pretty much never think.
Thanks for your time
-Jake
No, this isn’t about the Al Smith dinner, though that was funny too. This is about his appearance on Ellen last week.
I don’t know if he had the questions in advance or not, but if not, I’m really impressed (much moreso than the Al Smith dinner). I thought he was hilarious, and it seemed completely off-the-cuff to me.
Pro-choice people view the name “pro-life” as toxic. They prefer to call them “anti-choice”. Pro-lifers have total disdain for the name “pro-choice”. They prefer to call them “pro-abortion” (and occasionally, “anti-life”).
Both of these are disrespectful and, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both sides are constructing straw-man arguments. Pro-choicers argue:
The name ‘pro-life’ implies that we are somehow against life. Any intelligent person knows this is ridiculous. We just believe that this decision should be up to the mother.
Pro-lifers argue:
We are for ‘choice’ as well, and we believe that legal abortions don’t give the babies much ‘choice’.
These arguments are both ridiculous. The names imply none of these things; they refer to positions on the central abortion argument. No matter how you slice it, the abortion argument boils down to which you believe is more important: the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body and life after pregnancy has begun, or the unborn child’s right to have a chance at life. Other sub-arguments (“a single cell is not a life”, “the child can be born and then put up for adoption”, etc.) are all related to this central argument, and while they’re worth talking about, they don’t change what the main conflict is. The names reflect the two sides of this conflict, and nothing more.
I am pro-choice (by a hair), but I know that both sides have extremely compelling arguments, and to manufacture this type of disrespect is to show complete disdain for the intelligent people on the other side.
