Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Make It Stop


Wonder if she will nuke someone while on PMS?

Posted by Just Me | January 14, 2008 2:51 PM

That cartoon about sums up my thoughts on the situation. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

The last line of the linked article was pretty interesting...

Posted by Julie | January 14, 2008 2:58 PM

Yeah, 'cause Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi - they all just bombed their enemies back into the stone age every time they got "the curse"...

Posted by COMTE | January 14, 2008 2:59 PM

@3 no, Indira Ghandi just forcibly sterilized a large portion of the homeless people in her country...i wonder if that was from her period?

Posted by kkl327 | January 14, 2008 3:03 PM

Comte, don't forget Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, the first and second women presidents of Ireland.

Posted by MvB | January 14, 2008 3:04 PM

You might be intrigued by this.

But I still lean towards Obama.

Posted by tsm | January 14, 2008 3:06 PM

That was a cool cartoon.

I still am for Obama, though.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 14, 2008 3:08 PM

I love that the majority of the media discourse on the candidates can be distributed in easy to swallow talking points. This way I can vote on the candidates with the same warm feeling of satisfaction I get when I'm voting for the next american idol.

I'm a consumer whore.

BTW I support Obama, but if you're going to be against a candidate it should be what they stand for. Not for the way the media portrays them.

Posted by Lushy J | January 14, 2008 3:19 PM


When did Eire get teh nukes?

Posted by COMTE | January 14, 2008 3:19 PM

Thatcher bombed the Falkland Islands though

Posted by Hello | January 14, 2008 3:22 PM

With you on this one, ECB. Blech. Fortunately the (earlier linked) New Yorker piece had an actual political reporter analyze what happened between IA and NH.

Posted by Big Sven | January 14, 2008 3:25 PM

Comte, oops! Damn, that's supposed to be a big secret.

(Sorry, I thought the category was just women presidents.)

Posted by MvB | January 14, 2008 3:37 PM

because of these retarded non-issues, I am now for Edwards.

after all, I am a white man.

Posted by max solomon | January 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Just because some people don't make her a better candidate. She is clearly a centrist when we have a real chance for a real liberal in the whitehouse.

Posted by mason | January 14, 2008 3:48 PM

well there's only one really liberal on the ballot. I presume you're talking about Edwards, right? I like Obama's persona just fine as a human but not as our Pres. Anyone catch the NPR report this weekend about how none of the great civil rights leaders are in Obama's camp? They're all in Hillary's. Check it out

Posted by call me a snot | January 14, 2008 3:55 PM

great civil rights leaders? jessie jackson and al sharpton? lmao. they are a reason to vote against hillary. they havent done shit for civil rights, except perhaps galvanize a moderate, white, middle class against anything they say.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 14, 2008 3:57 PM

also, edwards is a spineless populist.
hillary's sub prime fix is a fiasco. 3 months of no for closures? freezing the market completely fucks the market up even more! a lot of these people could barely afford the pre-reset rates.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 14, 2008 4:00 PM

@14, yes, you are talking about Edwards right? Because he is the most populist of the three candidates.

If you're talking about Obama, wake up. The conservative Dems are the ones endorsing Obama. So far, Obama has been managing this high wire act where he convinces the progressives that he's the progressive candidate, while convincing the conservative Dems that he's the "uniter," ie the centrist candidate who can appeal to the conservative swathes of the country.

The truth is Obama's health care policy is the most conservative, and he's the most hawkish on Pakistan (which by the way is a country with NUKES.) He's said twice now, that I've heard him, that he would pre-emptively attack Pakistan.

I don't know why more people aren't talking about this, but as someone of sub-continent origin, this scares the bejeezus out of me. I can only hope that if he gets elected, he has the good sense to appoint someone with sense as his Secretary of State. Who will keep him the hell away from Pakistan.

Posted by arduous | January 14, 2008 4:04 PM

@18 -

The truth is Obama's health care policy is the most conservative, and he's the most hawkish on Pakistan (which by the way is a country with NUKES.)

"Most conservative"? Because it provides universal coverage but not a mandate? Sorry, but I don't buy it. He's merely using tax credits as an incentive to buy insurance, rather than using fines as a deterrent to not buying insurance. If anything, his plan will be more palatable to the American public while providing similar service.

As for trying to convince us that Obama is the hawkish one ... bwahahaha. Good luck on that one, with Hillary talking about pre-emptive strikes on Iran.

Posted by tsm | January 14, 2008 4:10 PM

Wonder if she will nuke someone while on PMS?

how do you know if she's still menstrating? did you ask her yourself?

Posted by from east of miss | January 14, 2008 4:16 PM

Efforts to paint Obama as "conservative" merely because he doesn't have (nor seeks) the approval of the Baby Boomer Liberal Old Guard are interesting. Obama getting the endorsement (at this stage) of Sharpton or Gloria Steinam would be the kiss of death.

For the record, I saw Clinton's "choke" not as a hysterical woman, or as calculated. Rather, I think we saw someone incredibly frustrated that after 8 yrs of Bush and restoration of the Clintons wasn't automatic. She doesn't get that some people are as sick and tired of the Clintons as they are of the Bushes.

Posted by Jason | January 14, 2008 4:47 PM

Interesting points, Jason @21. I tend to agree with you, and I'm much more liberal than most of the candidates.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 14, 2008 5:10 PM

@19, just out of curiosity, what IS your response to Obama's willingness to issue pre-emptive attack on Pakistan?

Your knee jerk reaction was to pelt Clinton. That's not enough for me. I need to know that Obama isn't really planning on attacking Pakistan.

Posted by arduous | January 14, 2008 5:11 PM

@23, I'll grant his choice of words was unfortunate, but it's not quite true to say he was planning to attack Pakistan in the way Hillary was threatening Iran. No one would seriously seek to invade Pakistan. He was speaking of attacks against terrorist facilities. If we knew for a fact that Osama bin Laden was in THAT HOUSE RIGHT OVER THERE RIGHT NOW - LOOK! SEE HIM THERE?! THAT'S HIM! RIGHT NOW! - do you believe that any US President would be going through extensive diplomatic discussion before sweeping in? Or would they decide it was better to ask forgiveness than permission? And do you honestly believe Musharraf would really be all that pissed, even though he would be obliged to show public anger, so as to not lose face?

Posted by tsm | January 14, 2008 5:19 PM

BTW, arduous, the reason I suspect most presidents would follow a similar policy is due to incidents like this:

Posted by tsm | January 14, 2008 5:27 PM

@ 4 that was more Indira's inability to see what a fruitloop her son Sanjay was.

I think if Indira had been a man and was as besotted with him as she was it still would have occured.

Posted by Malcolm in Sydney | January 14, 2008 9:49 PM

For the life of me, I do not get why so many of you are not analyzing objectively. There is no doubt that Obama is the most likable. But break it down people - John Edwards is significantly more progressive than the other two.

Posted by call me a snot | January 15, 2008 12:20 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).