Powered by TypePad

« Why Romney Supporters Make Us Laugh | Main | The Current Best Friend Of The VRWC »

January 23, 2008



Heh, he's not black, and she's not his wife.


Given that blacks have been bloc voting for 70 years, shouldn't the white vote have propelled every Republican since Willkie into office? Or is the black vote only problematically monolithic when it isn't lined up behind the white progressive du jour?


I think you're right, he needs to try to keep it semi-humorous. But he his ads are factual rebuttals, and its hard to make facts funny. He'd really need to go negative on clinton to use ridicule effectively. He's basically been playing defense, and just responding to her bogus claims. He needs to stay on offense in his attack ads. And the Clintons have tons of material to work with. It just seems to me he is very hesitant to bring that material out.


Have to settle for MoDo mocking the Clintons. She definitely does not like them.


Hillary better hope she doesn't get what she is wishing for. If she makes it an us against them thing in the Democratic primary, then if large numbers "them" sit on there hands in November, it'll backfire in a big way. Now it may well be that she doesn't care who wins come November if it isn't her, so it is a risk she is willing to take. After all she is 60, if Obama loses in November, she'd still have a shot in '12. Truth is I don't think very many white Democrats that vote for Hillary in the primaries would sit out the general election if Obama wins, I can see lots of Black voters refusing to vote for her in November if it does become a Black-White thing in the primaries. Off the top of my head I can think of few purple states with significant black populations, WI, LA, FL, and PA for starters.


Congratulations rethuglicans! You dragged our country into a needless and costly Invasion of Iraq. And then you drug our economy it the biggest pit since the great depression. Fuck all of you.

JM Hanes

What Obama desperately needs is a plausibly deniable surrogate. Alas, that would turn him into a Clinton, which is probably why he doesn't go there. At the rate Bill is alienating reporters, however, the press may do it for him.

Folks worry about Rudy's skeletons, but if you're looking for somebody to return fire and rattle the miscreants out of the Clinton's walk-in closet in the generals, he's your guy.

JM Hanes

LOL. Apparently, Obama's message of hope has yet to warm pete's cockles.


Pete's one of those solid 40 hour a week, $12.00 an hour, I hate that cocksucker (His employer) kinda guys. Pete got a loan he should never have even looked at and it's somebody else's fault. Pete's a pussy.


Forget which party you believe is perfect and look at what congress accomplishes - very little - they spend most of there time pointing out the fault of the other party. They waste more money in a minute than most of us will make in a life time.

1. Energy prices continue to go up, but they can't get there act together to come up with anything to offset it - nothing except it's the other parties fault. We should do something about alternatve forms of energy NOW instead of talking about it - the talk has been going on for years. And we should also be drilling & building nuclear power plants.

2. I paid (no loans) my way through college like a lot of kids back in the 60/70s and it wasn't that hard to do. Based on today's cost, it impossible to do. Why? And most colleges have more endowment money than ever...

3. Medical cost keep skyrocketing, why? Why does congress address it?

Why doesn't Congress do anything?


Is Pete upset?


Stinky Pete-

I dislike vulgarity.

...You dragged our country into a needless and costly Invasion of Iraq. And then you drug our economy it the biggest pit since the great depression....

Point 1. We were at war with Iraq from 91-03. What else would you call the NFZ'z, sanctions, embargo, failed coup plots, & etc? Never seems to occur to you that the sanctions regime made war more likely, not less.

Point 2. The Depression-really! I put a wiki link about the 1920's Florida bubble, and am really feeling good this morning, so I dug up the Mississippi Bubble. Come on-the depression-the US was hit with unemployment in the high teens and a deflation rate of about 10%.

Thought you were having a bad day, I wouldn't want to be this guy.


Sorry Donald,Pete isn't old enough for any of that. The spots and the pubic hair are just too much for him.


Pete makes me want to vote Democrat for President just so he can feel what real Misery is like.

Bill in AZ

History began all over again this morning for pete when he read the Soros Times...


I find the whole idea, that so many reporters and bloggers can't seem to grasp, that Hiliary is a woman and Obama is black, to be self evident, needing no further claification.

With that in mind, I find the whole current state of the Democratic primary coverage to be "one great distraction".

I mean, they, at least the media, really aren't talking about anything that interests anyone except gender and race bigots.

So with the media absorbed in reliving the battles of the 60's and 70's, just how is anyone to make an informed choice when there is no useful information in front of them ?


My brother sent me this article (Capitalism's Enemies Within) by Samuelson. I'm not a regular reader, but I know Samuelson loves bad news. Nevertheless, he makes some interesting arguments. Comments?

richard mcenroe

"Tricky question - we hope and believe they are not racist..."

Then you're lucky you weren't in LA during the riots. It looked like the evacuation of Kuwait, all the Mercedes stuffed with luggage, heading for the airports...


Bill Clinton must be stopped Daily Telegraph.

Other Tom

Centralcal, I think the principal difference between McCain and Romney is that McCain has a good chance of winning in November, whereas Romney has no chance whatsoever.

McCain would differ sharply from Hillary in the WOT, which is the principal issue for me. The federal judiciary is the number two issue, and again, they would differ sharply in that McCain will not nominate Laurence Tribe, Janet Reno, Lani Guinier, Stephen Reinhardt or Harry Pregerson to the Supreme Court, whereas Hillary might well nominate any or all of them. And stand by for a horde of radical feminists on the lower federal courts, from Eleanor Holmes Norton to Gloria Allred to that whacked-out woman from the University of Michigan.

I don't spend much time worrying about immigration, and don't understand why so many others do. And I've never felt that any president can or does have much impact on the economy, with the notable exceptions of Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan.

Bad news for those musing about having a beer with Romney: Mormons don't drink.


That was the best article I have read about Bill in a long time. It is so interesting that women still love the guy and Democrats fawn over the two grifters. Yet, the republicans this year are having a hard time getting excited about Mitt. Tells ya alot about the two parties here in the states.

Other Tom

Republicans aren't alone in not getting excited about Mitt: no one gets excited about him, and no one ever has. Could it possibly be that he's simply not exciting?


Many voters have tired of heated, substance-deleted back-and-forth. Whereas humor is definitely a cogent rejoinder, and if well-done, has the power to change argument's course, effectively stopping argument in its tracks.

Ron J

I agree that if Obama can somehow stay slightly above the mud, he might come out of this ok. The Clinton machine is very powerful so his chances are slim but I'm impressed with what he's done so far. I'm a Republican and I can take some comfort in the fact that which ever Democrat becomes President (we don't have a chance frankly) they will run the country's economy into the ground, guaranteeing Republicans will win the White House for the next decade afterwards. It's going to be a rocky four years tho!

Patrick Carroll

Black America is simply getting its just desserts for having lived so long on the Democrat plantation.

Hillary is happy enough to throw muck at a decent black man, simply because he stands between her and her entitlement. If the black vote turns from her, well, the Hispanic community in America is now bigger than the black community, so they will be pandered to in order to put her into power. And ultimately, the black vote, well, where's it going to go? To the Republicans? Yeah, right.

If I were a black voter, I'd be thinking long and hard about ever voting for another Democrat.


And stop picking on Pete! Dont you know its not only damp but rather chilly this time of year down in momma's basement? Seriously, the thought of a free $300 from the Government is not enough to stem that nasty snarl.


Ron J, I'd love to believe that a Dem would screw up so bad that the Republicans would be sure to win in four years. I still hope it could be the case. But a lot of folks thought the same thing would happen with Clinton - that he would be Carter II, four years and out - but we got eight instead. And we damn near had four years of Gore on top of that.

jim in los angeles

The Clintons:

"A Bridge To The 20th Century"



Blacks still get to vote? I heard that loophole had been shut down by Bush/Cheney in '04.

Mike O

Are you kidding me?? Against the Shrew, every man's nightmare for a spouse? As a white guy, I'll vote for my gender against my race everytime if that's the choice

Uncle Kenny

Let's even up the odds a little and get Michelle Obama faced off against Billy. I am reasonably certain an angry black woman (ABW), as she most definitely is, can kick Billy around the playground with little trouble. Of course, an ABW will turn off both white and black men, equally. The similarity in personal dynamics between Billary and Obamichelle are fascinating. Charismatic men with scolding Xantippe women.


Hey, Pete. Didn't Hillary and Edwards and twenty or so other Democrats authorize the use of force in Iraq?

How does the inside of your colon look?

David Avera

This could all be resolved if the democratic primary reserved some "affirmative delegates" or practiced affirmative action in their primary.
Apportioning out this affirmatory action would be fun to watch.


I have said it from the beginning and i stick by it. Hillary will never be president so long as she is married to Bill. Because when all those people get in the election booth they will ask, "do i really want to see how bill clinton behaves when the spotlight is on him, but he thinks he no longer has any responsibility?" It will move enough voters that Hill will be finished.


The apocryphal genius and might of the Clinton Machine are as genuine as the magics of the Great and Powerful Oz... which is to say strictly perceptual. Not illusory but perceptual. Can Barry the Shy and Meek prevail? In the primary, yes. But as Bob Tyrell pointed out so well and so long ago, Lefty politics are based on resentment merely. When the struggle is intermural it is a tug of war over who is the more aggrieved. To say that this is counterproductive is to vastly understate; in life and politics but if it's in politics they are foisting their misery on to me. I no like. But Hillary! is the unstoppable Dem nominee. We already had ONE black president... time for a woman. That these are both Clintons is a happy coincidence. Happy, happy coincidence.


50-50 Hillary would be doing better if, a decent interval after Bill got out of the WH, they divorced.
She would come across as more genuine to the feminists for standing up for herself, and to ordinary people for not living in a sham of a marriage (not for the understandable reasons of young children or inability to support herself, but rather cold calculation).


hey pete,

You are an asshole who even professional help can't help. The economy may or may not enter a recession, that is unknown as of yet. But to say this is the worst economy since the recesion shows a depth and breadth of stupidity I didn't think possible. But Leftist Derangement Syndrome is a serious mental defect, as you well prove.


Here's a thought: Hillary wins the nomination, but in the process alienates Obama personally and most black voters, while McCain becomes the oldest ever major party non-incumbent nominee. Choices for Obama: go Ted Kennedy like in '08 as Teddy did in '80 and don't waste any energy getting Hillary elected, for if she wins, she will be the nominee in '12. If she loses, and the Clintons' lose their base of power by '12, you get to run against the Republican McCain, who will be 76 at election time in '12 while Obama will be 50 or so. So Obama would run against an opponent who represents 12 years of Republican rule in '12, usually a ripe time for a change in the party in power. He would have early '08 through early '12 to build a record of accomplishment and to subtly campaign accross the country. The GWOT will be over in Iraq, and with luck the emphasis of the '12 campaign will be on domestic issues, namely more gimme politics, the Democratic stength. It looks to me that he has a lot to gain by seeing Hillary win the nomination and lose the election, and then to let himself emerge in '12 as the frontrunner for his party's nomination.

Other Tom

The problem with allowing Hillary to take the White House and screw everything up is that there are two potential forms of screwup: (1) the placing of two genuinely horrible justices on the Supreme Court; and (2) an emboldened Al Qaeda unleashing a devastating attack on US soil.

The first of these is very certain to happen, and the consequences will be with us for much, much longer than four years.


Isn't it time for the next season of candidates ?


I think "whoever the Dem candidate is" will win the Presidency. The Reps are just too unenthusiastic and each of the 3 top Rep candidates has a major problem with 1/3 of the Rep base (ala paper-rock-scissors). Those 1/3 will just sit out the election.
McCain having the best chance as he'll pull Inds & centrist-Dems.
Personally, I hope Obama defeats Hillary as unfortunately, only McCain has a chance to in the general election.

Other Tom

God only knows what an Obama presidency would bring--Obama himself certainly doesn't--but I would rather chance it than have the Clintons again, and it's not even a close call.

Unfortunately, Obama has zero chance at the nomination.

M. Simon

I think it is unanimous.

No one likes Hillary and she is unbeatable.

At least until the Hsu is on the other foot.


GMax, I'm not sure pete will be getting the 300 bucks. Isn't that only if you make at least $3000/year? How much can pete make by E*trading his savings from a paper route from his Mom's basement in a very down market? Hey!! Maybe that's why he's angry. He lost his whole $500 nest egg etrading by shorting oil futures.


Why not the Divil's ticket,Mr and Mrs Clinton and Obama get divorced and Hillary and Barrack get married.Perfect! A Man a woman and a person of colour.


The GOP is apathetic? Run Hillary for Prez and see how many of 'em come out of the woodwork, holding their noses, to vote for McCain (a RINO, mostly). Romney will be the GOP nominee because McCain has too poor a record of running roughshod over the constitution (McCain-Feingold) and not respecting the rule of law (immigration, part of the War on Terror). If Romney manages to talk Fred! into his VP, it will be a better, more electable ticket.

Hillary is damaged goods. Yes, Obama is inexperienced and has a questionable voting record. Hillary has NO experience, other than as Bill's spouse. She has never acheived anything of her own - that NY senate seat was purchased with her silence. I'd bet that the "annointing" of Hillary as "queen" really sticks in the craw of americans, as well.

Occam's Beard

As a straight white Rethuglican male (i.e., the wretched refuse of the earth), I'm loving this. Two Dems showed up with their "A" game of identity politics, only to find that there were no white males to blame for all world ills, but only each other.

It's kind like they came with hammers, only to find they had to tighten down a screw, and hitting it with the hammers isn't working.


PeterUK, that would work, and would leave Bill free to chase after Mrs. Obama. After all he (Bill)is said to have slept with more African-American women than has Senator Obama.


Just when I'd gotten over my Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Bill and Hillary stop all pretense and show their true colors, reminding me of everything I detested about their administration.


I don't like it. I see a white Democrat disgracefully and dishonestly abusing a black man. This is reminiscent of what we saw in 1860 and 1960. I think Republicans should step in again. Bill Clinton should be reprimanded, by Republicans, for his dishonesty and divisiveness.

Rick Ballard


That can be said about Sen. Clinton's husband accross all racial and age categories. It's been true since BHO was a very popular teenager, too. Now, some may say that given Beer Goggles Bubba's lack of discrimination in the field of philandary, his actual (voluntary) conquests are unremarkable but I believe that allowances should be made in consideration of who he faced every morning.

Mike Force

It would be almost worth it to have Hillary elected just to watch what would happen in the White House. Wait, she already has that covered. Bill will become a roving ambassador—4-years, non-stop, on the road, fucking everyone's wife, an ethnic cornucopia of pelts on his belt. And at his age!

He's been a wild rover for many a year
And he's spent all his morals on pussy and gear
But now he's returning with gold in great store
And he'll play the wild rover no more


The link for the IBD "CoalGate" is under my name. It's probably too confusing to have legs with the democrats, but sheesh, it's pretty amazing even in Clinton terms.

Mike Force


No never no more
No nay never, no nay never no more
Will he play the wild rover no never no more


Mr Ballard,
"I believe that allowances should be made in consideration of who he faced every morning."
Consider the possibility that if his wife is elected he will be walking behind her for four years.

Reminds one of the story,of the man strangling his mistress,fortunately she broke free and asked him why,he said "Sorry he had a bad dream and though it was his wife".


Awww...Dennis Kucinich is dropping out of the presidential race. ::sigh::


This election isn't going to be about a black/white thing, it's going to be a black/brown (latino) thing.

The repubs are probably already trying to figure out how to peel off the group left in the lurch. Whether they'll be smart, and successful, is another thing.

Rick Ballard

Mr Uk,

I'm rather curious as to whether the Societe General guy might have links to Soros. It really appears as if the market meltdown may have been a staged event centered around manipulation of ""news"" concerning housing and employment numbers plus this $7 billion fraud scheme. I wonder how many traders one would have to buy in order to cause a crash?

On a happier note - the Communist Prodi is looking for work and Berlu is coming back. Now, if you guys and Israel would give the bums the boot, the world would be a happier place.


Berlu's coming back? Hurrah. And Zapatero is reportedly in trouble.
The wheel turns.

Bill in AZ

One can only hope the $7B came out of Soros pocket somehow or other... interesting timing, the economy bashing nonsense from Soros right on the heels of this. I suspect he didn't type up that screed that morning.

Bill in AZ

You gotta admit it makes a bigger splash than funding yet another warehouse full of un-sellable Bush bashing books by the likes of Marcy and Valerie... a bit more expensive though.


Mr Ballard,
Soros keeps saying that the US and the UK are heading for problems and we all know he makes his money out of other people's problems.
This is the latest I have second item


Yes, but Zapatero has his lucky keffiya


Mr Ballard,


Mr Ballard and another one Bloody tripepad.


anduril re: 1042am-


Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists.

The back-scratching of the boards, corporate officers, and government is more akin to 1980's Asian corporatism than capitalism-rent seeking corporatism specifically.

Wall Street's pay practices perversely encourage extreme risk-taking that can destabilize the economy.

I find this overstated. I find it doubtful that if Wall Street paid less or in a different method that there would be "less risk to the economy". If Wall Street were less "risky", then a lot of innovation wouldn't get funded-without innovation, reduced productivity-reduced productivity, reduced standard of living.

Think of the “sub-prime” crisis as a new financial technology which outran the law. Lessons are going to be learned and new regulations will be put in place to prevent the spectacular abuse of the last few years. We should also keep the”>sub-prime crisis in perspective to the overall housing market. It is a problem, and a serious one for the credit markets, but paying Wall Street less wasn’t going to stop it and isn't going to lance the next bubble [solar power].

Housing prices were recovering from a bear market in 88-92 [California’s lasted longer], interest rates were declining, and despite all the dire warnings from Krugman, incomes were expanding in the second quartile, allowing people to gain access to homeownership. Financial products allowed people to capitalize the equity in their housing to put the wealth to work. There was also a demographic shift in the 1990's as a large percentage of people in there late 20's and early 30's began to get married and start families putting further udward pressure on housing. Environmentalism is also problematic as it takes land away from productive development [the whole green space craze and the related problem of historical districting].

The federal government also stepped in and jawboned the mortgage lending and banking industry to underwrite more risky loans to expand home ownership during the 1990’s, so the obsequious senators yammering on about the crisis actually had a hand in making the mess in the first place.

His fingering of Goldman Sachs is misplaced anyway because they were the counter-party on the short side of a lot of this and reported a very good 3Q [and a very good 2007].

I’m curious as to what Samuelson means by “less risk" anyway, and one could look at the returns of “sovereign funds” and foundations and compare them to private equity or hedge funds to see over the longer term which provides the better investment vehicle. Sovereign funds and foundations are unproductive capital and steer clear of risk-that is why most of the employees that work for them are salaried. I suppose the counter to this is university foundations and endowments, however, I'm not sure how productive a university endowment is if the university never spends it.

the subprime failure turns out to be a preamble to a larger financial breakdown, flowing from the creation of new securities that offered short-term trading possibilities but whose long-run risks were underestimated

Part of the problem with the sub-prime meltdown is that the banks weren't being transparent with one another, and the bigger problem, they were not being transparent internally. This gets to another problem [and this can be extended to other areas as well]-the corporate officers, boards, and government regulators have all had a similar education, read the same elite journals and newspapers, and when they think they have the next big idea they never stop to consider that the guy in the shop next store has the exact same idea. It is not so much the idea of a sub-prime security, it is that once everyone caught on, everyone started to herd towards the cliff.

Other stuff on sub-prime: I skimmed some of it-

Boston Fed 2007 [link eaten]

Chicago Fed 2005 [link eaten]

St Louis Fed 2005 [link eaten]


I'm still dissatified with the above. I wanted to describe hedge funds in terms of cosmolgy-think of hedge funds as a black hole and the subject [say the housing industry or sub-prrime sector] as the event horizion. Hedge fund operators are able to translate the data*money quanta [price] as they fall into the back hole into information*capital [transaction]. The back hole itself can be the interactions of hedge fund operators specalizing in a particular field and their operations split apart the information*capital quanta and where they are located from the center is in some relation to the information and capital they collect. Starting to think about the idea when I read the article about Paulson making all the money he did. Its bad, fwiw

Rick Ballard


Another way to think about it is that a Gramscian dominated board (such as CITI's) has a much higher probability of setting aside reality than a Tocquevillian dominated board. A Gramscian board will therefore fall into misfeasance (or march into malfeasance) much more readily than a Tocquevillian board.

There's an investment strategy tucked in that idea. Currently Boeing appears to be on the cusp.

BTW - UC bids out its endowment management on a continual basis with the endowment split between five firms. The weakest performer is summarily dispensed with so 20% of the action is always in play. The courage of progressive's lack of convictions on full display once again. When it's their money they pay close attention to reality.

Thanks for the link to the Hoover piece. It's well worth a close read.



I read that Hoover Inst. piece a while back and recently picked it up again. Its a grat read, glad you enjoyed it.


Has anyone ever done a comparison of S&P 500 boards and split out the political activity of the board members [fundraisng by party, political office, foundation donations]-could create an index of politicaly dominated firms and chart there preformance?

This could be a interesting project irt Windshuttle's observation that the embrace of a Gramscian agenda [specifically Foucault] in History and the Humanities has nearly brought about the end of History as a discipline.

Rick Ballard


I've never seen one. At, say, fifteen board members per company, it wouldn't be much trouble to perform the searches. It would give a nice database for checking who is in that great big quaking root ball too.

Another aspect that I would find interesting is the makeup of the direction of the big mutual funds. I don't see how T Rowe Price can justify punishing investors by hanging on to 20% of the NYT while it drops like a rock. Sure, it's worth about double the current price in breakup and brand - if you could pry Junior out of his office. There's another proxy fight in the offing but nothing good happens while Junior remains.



The comments to this entry are closed.