View Story | 222 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
are most welcome.
Susan (my cat)
by SusanHu on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:58:50 AM PDT
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. - Calvin
by iconoclastic cat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:03:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Don't you have paychecks to cash, Soozie?
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:45 AM PDT
John W. McCain, Bush's third term.
by aaraujo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:41:55 AM PDT
Obama also plagarized FDR, Martin Luther King, and Thomas Jefferson! He didn't even mention those speakers by their names!
/snark
ps - SusanHu, does the Clinton camp really want to argue that words only matter when someone else has said them first? That's not "ready to lead" - more "ready to follow my pollster"
Join me at Strategy '08
by zenbowl on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:07:29 AM PDT
And the Farmworkers movement of the 60's! Si Se Puede! Yes We Can!...who does Obama think he is!
OH-16: John Boccieri will finally end 36 years of Regula Rule.
by marcvstraianvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:09:37 AM PDT
Obama obviously plagiarized this from the first word of the Constitution. I tell you, there are no depths to this man's sheer evil!
McCain: Running for Hoover's 21st term
by Finck II on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:53 AM PDT
the English language pretty wholesale. Any nods to Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Noah Webster in his speeches? I don't think so.
by zenbowl on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:40:55 AM PDT
"Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"
by roseeriter on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:56:13 AM PDT
With all this nonsense about plagiarism, you'd think that someone would have remembered this.
by Finck II on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:56:43 AM PDT
here's my boring complaint. If he claims to inspire his voters to end the hate and start that hope, why so much hate? When his words inspire more of you (it's sinking in to some) to disagree without being disagreeable, I'll pay more attention to his words.
Hillary - Alternative Energy
by anna shane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:47:34 AM PDT
by condorcet on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM PDT
the most important thought process we have at our disposal. And if we don't use it, we deserve what we get.
"Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."
by Owllwoman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:09:07 AM PDT
Mass psychology prohibit rational thought process.
We deserved what we got when we elected Bush 2. If we can't perform critical thinking again this time, we know which we are heading.
She's a diamond, strong, bright, and precious.
by JoeySky18 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:01:19 AM PDT
The Ann Coulter of SusanHu's.
I'm starting to think you're an Obama plant put out here just to make Hillary look bad.
Its the delegates that count
by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:11:09 AM PDT
One can't help but infer that SusanHu is a brilliant strategy conceived by Axelrod himself. Only he would imagine himself the all-powerful puppetmaster, the Cyrano behind the oratory of the most gifted politicians of his day! Look for more SusanHu diaries like this: "Obama is nothing but the mouthpiece of the brilliant but sinister mind that is David Axelrod!"
"Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes
by MarkC on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:47:37 AM PDT
thing a try.
You might like it. It'd be a change for you, if nothing else.
-dms
Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.
by dmsilev on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:12:47 AM PDT
I'm guessing from this diary and Alegres continued stupidity,not so good.
http://dumpjoe.com/
by ctkeith on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:15:52 AM PDT
unbalanced attack by not including Deval Patrick's side of the story.
Don't Legitimize Fox News. "Democrats have the heart to care."
by jeepdad on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:17:25 AM PDT
And yeah, hasn't he tied his political future to Obama's star?
Yeah, we could trust whatever he says about it. Right.
If Patrick was running against Obama you can be damn sure he would be calling out Obama for plagarism on this, or at least for his distinct lack of originality.
"The world is a mess, and I just need... to rule it" - Dr. Horrible
by Niniane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:21:19 AM PDT
is probably tied to him suggesting the words to Obama in the first place.
Respect. Empower. Include.
by Meng Bomin on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:28:05 AM PDT
Was that snark?
by Meng Bomin on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:34:10 AM PDT
except we pick on your GOD OBAMA
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person
by NewHampster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:22:16 AM PDT
But I will not support absurd Swiftboat tactics against Democrats by either candidate's supporters.
If SusanHu wants to discuss the issue fairly, she will point out both sides by quoting Deval's own words in which he gives permission to the Obama camp to use his ideas. But she does not, because it conveniently kills her argument.
by jeepdad on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:27:52 AM PDT
Trollrating Jeepdad's comment has nothing to do with him and everything to do with your Hate. For this abuse of rating privileges, yours should be lifted, immediately.
by leonard145b on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:55:21 AM PDT
I only love with my hides. I have had the Kool-Aid and it makes me detest anyone on either side who resorts to nasty picky picky crap.
Meaning, I've really had it with the Daily Obama.
by NewHampster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:33:19 AM PDT
This crap is not even news. It tells me that Hillary can't defend the indefensible (Iraq war vote, NAFTA, her ties with the DLC) and that her supporters have to resort to throwing these smokescreens out. The American people are sick and tired of this.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:42:53 AM PDT
to have someone almost admit that you are voting against Hillary not really for Obama.
Voting against is such a positive, meaningful change to the politics of old. It must make you feel good to be so full of hate.
by NewHampster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:55:03 AM PDT
is a noble thing and should be encouraged.
by jeepdad on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM PDT
and divisive here at dkos as I have seen you do if you really want to distance yourself from it.
PaintyKat
WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats
by PaintyKat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM PDT
that more and more people are turning away from Sen. Clinton and her message, and listening more closely to Sen. Obama and his message.
Oh, and when they do, they vote for him.
Really, heckuva campaign you guys are running.
"The world's a mess and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM PDT
I voted for Obama because he has the judgement to keep us out of wars like Iraq and because he can transform this country into one where the peoples' voices matter, not the powerful. And the fact that Obama has the kind of charisma that he does and the fact that he has a lot lower negatives than Hillary does means that he can get a much more progressive agenda passed than Hillary can.
The diarist is the one who seems full of hate for Obama, given that she would rather nitpick over a non-issue than actually explain why Hillary would make such a good president.
by Eternal Hope on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM PDT
I assume you still like Al Gore.
If so, did you know that Al Gore was the biggest public defender of NAFTA... he even went on Larry King Live to debate Ross Perot on that issue.
There were 8 million new jobs created in the US in the 7 years after NAFTA.
The take home income of the working poor in the US increased...for the first time in 40 years.
So once again, what was so bad about NAFTA ?
by SevenStrings on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM PDT
It did many Mexicans out of their livelyhoods and displaced millions of them, causing our illegal immigration problem and created the pool of cheap labor in this country that corporate abusers of power can exploit. There may have been eight million new jobs created, but it does not follow that they were created by NAFTA.
by Eternal Hope on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM PDT
How many Mexicans did it do out of their livelihoods. How many millions did it displace ? Do you have any links.... or are you just making up hot air.
So you are saying that the 8 million new jobs were created inspite of NAFTA. How many would have been created in the absence of NAFTA ? The employment rate went from 7 percent to about 4 percent, which most economists consider to be full employment.... it was not possible to create any more jobs.
by SevenStrings on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM PDT
Per year?
Millions.
http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/...
Judging by the number of illegal immigrants that have come across our borders, I would say millions. The above link explains:
Peasant agriculture has been eviscerated by the arrival of agri-business and the lifting of restrictions on the sale of peasant land. Industrial employment has been eviscerated by the closure of hundreds of plants unable to compete with the transnationals under the new free-for-all trade regime. The response of peasants and workers thus displaced has been clear and consistent: they have headed north in ever greater absolute numbers. Before NAFTA, undocumented Mexican immigration came mainly from four or five Mexican states and a limited number of mostly rural municipalities. Since NAFTA, migrants have originated in all Mexican states, practically all municipalities, and cities as well as towns and villages. A number of formerly vibrant places are now ghost towns, all their able adults having gone abroad; about one-third of all Mexican municipalities have lost population during the last decade, some by half or more. The counterpart of this hollowing out of the Mexican countryside is the growth of the Mexican migrant population in the U.S., much of it undocumented. From a purely regional presence in the west and southwest, it has become a truly national phenomenon. States that had barely a handful of "Hispanics" in 1990 now count a sizable Hispanic population. In Georgia, for example, the Latin-origin population went from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000, a 312 percent increase due to an inflow of 300,000 persons, overwhelmingly from Mexico. Cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, whose "Hispanics" in 1990 consisted of a few wealthy Cuban and South American professionals, now have upwards of 80,000, mostly undocumented Mexican laborers. American media commentators and policy pundits attack the migrants themselves for their presence and greater visibility. They are dubbed "law-breakers" and accused of "taking jobs away from Americans." But this is just another exercise in victim-blaming. Those truly responsible for the situation are the authorities who embraced free markets as a cure for all economic and social ills. Government officials on both sides who promoted and signed the NAFTA treaty were either guilty of shortsightedness for swallowing the ideological pap purveyed by some academic economists about the "magic" of markets (from which these tenured economists are themselves well protected) or of deliberate deceit. Protected by ideological bromides about "open trade" and "trickle-down wealth," the balance sheets of many corporations and the salaries of their CEOs and CFOs have grown relentlessly healthier. As the decade progressed, they were increasingly able to pay lower wages on both sides of the border; neatly bypass environmental controls and labor protection codes; and market their wares unhindered here and there. By the same token, state and local governments were set to compete with one another to keep or attract a few industrial plants in a futile race to the bottom.
Peasant agriculture has been eviscerated by the arrival of agri-business and the lifting of restrictions on the sale of peasant land. Industrial employment has been eviscerated by the closure of hundreds of plants unable to compete with the transnationals under the new free-for-all trade regime. The response of peasants and workers thus displaced has been clear and consistent: they have headed north in ever greater absolute numbers. Before NAFTA, undocumented Mexican immigration came mainly from four or five Mexican states and a limited number of mostly rural municipalities. Since NAFTA, migrants have originated in all Mexican states, practically all municipalities, and cities as well as towns and villages. A number of formerly vibrant places are now ghost towns, all their able adults having gone abroad; about one-third of all Mexican municipalities have lost population during the last decade, some by half or more. The counterpart of this hollowing out of the Mexican countryside is the growth of the Mexican migrant population in the U.S., much of it undocumented. From a purely regional presence in the west and southwest, it has become a truly national phenomenon. States that had barely a handful of "Hispanics" in 1990 now count a sizable Hispanic population. In Georgia, for example, the Latin-origin population went from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000, a 312 percent increase due to an inflow of 300,000 persons, overwhelmingly from Mexico. Cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, whose "Hispanics" in 1990 consisted of a few wealthy Cuban and South American professionals, now have upwards of 80,000, mostly undocumented Mexican laborers.
American media commentators and policy pundits attack the migrants themselves for their presence and greater visibility. They are dubbed "law-breakers" and accused of "taking jobs away from Americans." But this is just another exercise in victim-blaming. Those truly responsible for the situation are the authorities who embraced free markets as a cure for all economic and social ills. Government officials on both sides who promoted and signed the NAFTA treaty were either guilty of shortsightedness for swallowing the ideological pap purveyed by some academic economists about the "magic" of markets (from which these tenured economists are themselves well protected) or of deliberate deceit. Protected by ideological bromides about "open trade" and "trickle-down wealth," the balance sheets of many corporations and the salaries of their CEOs and CFOs have grown relentlessly healthier. As the decade progressed, they were increasingly able to pay lower wages on both sides of the border; neatly bypass environmental controls and labor protection codes; and market their wares unhindered here and there. By the same token, state and local governments were set to compete with one another to keep or attract a few industrial plants in a futile race to the bottom.
by Eternal Hope on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:06:21 PM PDT
nafta...as you originally claimed.
That was my question!!!!
by SevenStrings on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:22:47 PM PDT
The problem with NAFTA is that large corporations used it to close plants in this country, eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and move south to Mexico where they could sell their products for much cheaper than local producers could. So, millions of local producers were forced out of business and either had a choice between working for substandard wages or going north.
by Eternal Hope on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:32:35 AM PDT
Which is a piece of crap.
Obama, or McCain
by Elise on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:40:48 AM PDT
POINT POINT
I guess everyone's got their own blog now.
by zonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:18:49 AM PDT
do you really make an argument for why this should be relevant or important? Why did I just waste five minutes of my life reading your post?
One Million Strong --- Join up!
by psericks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:25:31 AM PDT
If "rational" was your standard, this diary would never have been written.
by Finck II on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:25:42 AM PDT
by aaraujo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:31:32 AM PDT
But she Will
by NewHampster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:34:27 AM PDT
when she stole from Kerry Healy the charge of "just words" and "just speeches"? Did she have her permission as Obama had Patrick's?
I wrote a diary on this http://www.dailykos.com/...
by Bidabunch on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:34:59 AM PDT
when she said she was "Fired up and ready to go!"??
Or when she said, "Yes we will!"?
I await the SusanHu diary accusing Hillary Clinton of plagiarism...
don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
by Elise on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM PDT
are most welcome. Susan, this is weak. Very weak.
by Prison4Bushco on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:49:21 AM PDT
Your toxic hit diaries make all of us here on DKos, Obama and Clinton supporters alike, look bad. This sort of nonsense belongs on Redstate, not a website for Democrats.
Help to fight Right-wing lies about Barack Obama!
by Practical Progressive on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:31:08 AM PDT
Taylor Marsh -- who the left used to love until she dared to support Sen. Clinton
It isn't that she (or you) supports HRC, Susan...it's the fact that you post half-true, RWTP-filled, sexist-accusing, supporter-baiting ranting screeds.
You wanna pick a candidate and advocate for her, fine. But posting bullshit lies, linking to RW sites, and selectively twisting quotes to fit your needs does you no good as a journalist.
The types of stuff you and Taylor post is the antithesis to everything the netroots stands for.
THAT's why you experience so much vitrol on this site.
You're close to being a liar, something we've come to expect from the MSM, but not from some of our formerly truthful and progressive bloggers like you, Taylor, Jerome @ mydd, LC Johnson and others.
You'd do yourself and your reputation a favor if you sat out the remainder of the primary season.
We...join arm in arm and decide we are going to remake this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state - that's what hope is.
by DemocraticOz on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM PDT
that continually tries to peddle Obama's terrorist ties?
You, at least, had the guts to check the little "warning" box and return here to continue your fight (however, misguided, imo), but your co-hort Larry Johnson prefers to make pathetic charges (Bill Ayers! gimme a break) from the sanctuary of his little website.
by dannyinla on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM PDT
Wow. I truly pity you.
I trust Barack Obama.
by Jennifer Clare on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 222 comments