Bias?

First.

I'm going to write in Joe Biden.

Uh, this is a blog, not a newspaper.

Thank you for at least not repeating the canard that Hillary has "35 years of experience." It is true that she has one senate term under her belt.

I am more in favor of Hillary than Obama, but I would point out that the current brain-dead occupant of the oval office had little to no experience either when he was "elected." Surely Obama, who is at least educated and articulate, can do better than Shrub has done over these past 7 miserable years.

I am more in favor of Hillary than Obama, but I would point out that the current brain-dead occupant of the oval office had little to no experience either when he was "elected." Surely Obama, who is at least educated and articulate, can do better than Shrub has done over these past 7 miserable years.

Hack blogger takes political cheap shot to increase website's hit count!!

"Surely Obama, who is at least educated and articulate..."

He is also "clean," as Senator Biden can attest.

What is up with that xenophobic commentary from BostonNow about how most Massachusetts citizens would not want the publishing industry in the hands of Germans?

He needs to be a little more concerned about the monopoly that Clear Channel has in ownership of radio stations...and the owners are from the U.S.

That's not true, 2:26. She also lived in the White House while it was run by other elected and appointed officials. And previously was a law firm attorney. That's experience! Obama, on the other hand, was a labor organizer and an elected state senator. Not experience! Hillary will no where to find a fork in the White House on Day One. Only Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are even close to as qualified.

That's not true, 2:26. She also lived in the White House while it was run by other elected and appointed officials. And previously was a law firm attorney. That's experience! Obama, on the other hand, was a labor organizer and an elected state senator. Not experience! Hillary will know where to find a fork in the White House on Day One. Only Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are even close to as qualified.

Obama = affirmative action admit

I can't help but agree.

I see many of these now-Obama myrmidons as the same mindless "do the wave" voters who put the current president in office for two terms. They are all too willing to gloss significant failures and shortcomings over with "it just feels right."

The press dares not disturb this sensation, because sensations sell much better than actual education and critical vetting.

I like Obama and will be happy to vote for him for president. I'm just worried that he hasn't been forged in nearly hot a fire as Hillary and will buckle under real scrutiny and/or performance expectations.

I can't believe how blatantly biased this is. Lat, I am disappointed. This has only fanned the fires of my burning love for Obama.

Waah Waah a big scary liberal is going to get elected. Wah Wah Wah I'm Lat.

I guess Obama just lost the gay, federalist society vote. Where will he make up those three votes?

I think most of you are taking this post waay too seriously. This is a crappy blog that provides good information on associate compensation, but is otherwise awful. Deal with it.

Hey Lat,

Instead of griping about the fact that everybody loves Barack, why not look into the reason everybody loves him. He's self-made (unlike Hillary), authentic (unlike Hillary), a uniting force (unlike Hillary), and he cops to his past mistakes (unlike Hillary). If she were more like he, she might have a shot at returning to the White House.

Hear, hear! Any candidate who doesn't lead a charge to "reduc[e] foreign corporate control of the U.S. book publishing industry" will NEVER get my vote!! As a far distant second, I'm kinda interested in what that person thinks about the war in Iraq, foreign relations, and healthcare.

2:46: You read my mind.

2:46, as every single head-to-head poll shows, Hillary Clinton is the least electable of the "big 3" Democrats. Having her on the ticket is like putting a gay marriage referendum on the ballot. You'd be shooting the party in the face to vote for her in a primary.

But is Madrassa educated Barrack HUSSEIN Obama really an al Qaeda sleeper agent, groomed from birth to take the helm of the US?

Has anyone ever read any Patrick Robertson books (Kilo Class, Nimitz Class)...?

I've always considered myself a) a Democrat and b) a liberal but Mr. Robertson makes points in his books about the way both of those groups tend to underfinance our military.

Does anyone else agree there is a difference between financing a military and financing the current war? I'm in favor of the former, but not the latter...

JT supports JT's bid for the White House.

Obama has never had to run a real campaign, as his Senate opponent dropped out (and it was in a blue state, anyway).

Wait until he gets an Atwater-style attack on him. He's got some really liberal positions the Republicans will have a field day with.

Election was a great flick. I highly recommend it.

Lat sharpens his pen again about black folk. If they're not psycho on his blog, they're just plain unworthy.

At least he's consistent.

2:55, have you visited this site before? We debate things in the comments like whether Frat Stud could beat up Loyola 2L -- not the finer points of political philosophy.

3:02:

Yes, I am on this site all the time. Some people definitely enjoy the FRAT STUD-type posts--but once in a while, for those of us who have more than three brain cells, it might be nice to have a more intelligent post.

I say that the people of NH should all just write in Ralph Wiggum for president tomorrow. That'll show those journalists whose boss.

absolutely correct Texas Two Step. notice how he is "approving" comments and yet the "Obama = affirmative action admit" comment stands.

Why do asians let white people provoke them into hatred of blacks all the time?

yes, lat & i will be voting for the republican who WILL be enforcing US antitrust laws, especially against media conglomerates.

(also cool -- our republican refused the chance to make $1.7 M because he's not that into money, unlike obama)

please join us.

So, in a year where the Democrats are *absolutely* the frontrunners to take over the White House, the options are Hil-Clint -- who everybody knows will be slaughtered in a general election -- and Obsama -- who, well, everybody knows will be slaughtered in a general election.

Geez, even assuming the absolute worst (read: Huckabee), the GOP has gotta like its chances. It's fun, really.

hope is just so audacious.

Hot4Hill > Obama Girl.

What else matters?

@ 2:46

"I see many of these now-Obama myrmidons..."

Mr. Burns has learned to work the internet?

According to Volokh, Law Professors favor Obama to Hillary almost 3 to 1.

Lat, this post sucks. You're a legal blogger (and a damn good one at that) - leave the political analysis to the pundits. We come here to read about transsexual girlfriends of scumbag lawyers, Biglaw raises, and state judges behaving badly, not this political tripe.

Someone posted earlier today that you haven't been audacious (pun intentional) in your political bias unlike other blogs. I think this post proves otherwise.

Lat, why in the heck are you getting into this on this blog??? All you are doing is polarizing your readers. I sincerely doubt you'll be convincing anybody to switch sides.

If I wanted to read about NH primaries, I'd go to the drudge report or huffington post. Can we please go back to topics more befitting to atl?

General unbiased question: What are Hillary Clinton's qualifications for running for office, other than being married to a former (popular) president?

If you answer she's a Senator, then just adjust my question to ask what were here qualifications for Senator, other than being married to a former (popular) president? Or more generally, what qualifies her as a good leader? Nothing. She has been riding and is trying to continue to ride the Bill Clinton wave like a bad spin-off from a cancelled and successful TV show. "Joey" anyone? "Three's a crowd"?

Bottom line is she's a poll whore, extremely spineless and overly political. She has no values that are intrinsic to her; her values change with the whims of the American public, which themselves change all too often. A great leader leads on his/her own beliefs, values and judgments.

Too bad Lat had to disgrace himself to pull an unabashedly baised stunt like this.

3:09 = Republican troll.

Right, "everyone" just knows Obama will be "slaughtered" in the general election. No problem. How's that time machine working?

Lat, why in the heck are you getting into this on this blog??? All you are doing is polarizing your readers. I sincerely doubt you'll be convincing anybody to switch sides.

If I wanted to read about NH primaries, I'd go to the drudge report or huffington post. Can we please go back to topics more befitting to atl?

Jesus, Lat. Go post this on your personal blog, not ATL.

For shame.

Agree completely with 3:21(2). I have never understood how a second-term junior senator could hope to campaign on her "experience" and others' lack thereof.

3:23, I think ATL is his personal blog.

How is Obama a "uniter" other than in his own words? Was he part of "gang of 14" moderates that rose above partisan politics in judges... nope. He has left wing agenda.

Hillary? Gross, I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

It's about the competence, stupid!

Law professors and the media elite love the professorial Mr. Obama. Sure, he talks a good game (outside of debates) but he has not shown himself to be anymore competent at governing (which is the job at stake) than our current illustrious leader. No one can seriously doubt that Hillary would be incredibly competent. She gets things done.

Come on people, Hillary was in the White House for 8 years, during which time the national debt was transformed into a surplus, the Dow reached record highs, and prosperity reigned.

I could use 4 years of a Clinton WH right about now.

Why is nobody talking about "war without end" McCain? That's what this country needs! More invasions!

This post smacks of laziness. Lat's output today has been pretty lame. Rough weekend?

It's easier to launch a partisan screed against Obama than to post something substantive - like, I dunno, a cut & paste from the WSJ Legal Blog.

There are two reasons I love that the youth "vote" in Iowa slammed Hillary's chances at winning the caucus:

1) less than a year ago she pissed off Chelsey when she called youth lazy; and

2) it's Iowa -- there are no youths.

Obama is well to the left of me politically, but I'd still vote for him against any of the truly atrocious candidates the Republicans are considering. We've got:

1. An unstable ultra-hawk: McCain
2. A chameleon: Romney
3. A bible-thumping rube: Huck
4. A neoconservative: Rudy

Fred Thompson is actually halfway decent, IMO, but his heart isn't in it and he doesn't have a chance so forget him.

Compared to those 4 other guys, Obama looks lke the second coming of Christ.

I think it's funny that Hillary wants "credit" for her time in the White House but how "on the ball" or "in the loop" could she have been when she didn't even know that her husband was getting his wand polished under his desk at the Oval Office??????

3:37-

you're probably right...HC would probably be great president. problem is, b/c of the past 20 years of political history in this country, she wouldn't get the chance. like it or not, the past 20 years of bush/clinton partisan war (w/ the prospect of another 8) would sabotage anything she wanted to do. she's a great candidate, but her timing sucks.

***NEWS FLASH***

Being married to the President is not experience. Being married to a governor is not experience either.

Lat is baiting you. And judging from all the insults and attacks on him in these comments, you have taken the bait.

Utterly subpar and absurdly biased. Lat, it is not your place to transform this site into your own personal vent for political drivel. Even if you did, being so blatantly biased - trumpeting Clinton's eight unproductive years as First Lady while ignoring Obama's substantive political and legislative achievements in Illinois - would certainly come home to roost eventually.

Keep your day job.

"3:09 = Republican troll."

Well done, 3:21!! Dems are always so quick on the uptake!

We don't need no stinking time machine. Current odds run at 1.2-1 that the GOP retains the WH. Even in shambles, the Republican party is better than anything the Dems can muster.

Facts sting.

Any republican is a better choice than Hillary or Obama. A vote for either of them is a vote for bigger government and higher taxes. Universal healthcare is a great idea; government-run universal healthcare is the worst idea ever.

I agree Fred Thompson is the best choice in the field of republicans right now, but I don't think he can win. McCain is probably our best hope. He will stick to the tax cuts and will actually CUT spending, unlike Bush has done. He also knows how to handle the foreign policy issues. He has also beaten both Hillary and Obama in some (not all) of the national head to head polls over the past couple of months.

"Remember how her political career was launched, after she was humanized as the wronged woman in L'Affaire Lewinsky?"

Huh??

Lat, I guess you were just a wee teenybopper back in '92, but surely even you must remember "2 for the price of 1"? (Hell, I'm younger than you and *I* remember it. I had neighbors who voted for Bill BECAUSE of Hillary). Hillary, like Eleanor Roosevelt before her, made the role of First Lady actually, like, you know, MATTER. Unlike Jackie "look how pretty and fashionable I am!" O. or Babs "Adam's Apple" Bush.

I mean, what kind of sexist drivel is it to say that a key political figure in the United States didn't have any real import until her husband cheated on her and she forgave him? I know you love yourself teh drama, Lat, but this is just insulting to your female readers. We only matter when we're emotional and vulnerable and girly, like we're supposed to be, huh?

The Lewinsky scandal did not "launch" Hil's career, and shame on you for suggesting it did.

"Current odds run at 1.2-1 that the GOP retains the WH"

Source?

There's nothing sadder than a filipino queen trying to be an Angry White Male. I guess this is what "conservatism" has been reduced to in this country . . .

How is it that Obama's campaign isn't making Obi-Wan Kenobi references up and down??? I mean, with the power of the force on his side, he would be unstoppable. UN-stoppable!!

"Help us, Obama-Wan, you're our only hope!"

"Source?" (Current odds run at 1.2-1 that the GOP retains the WH)

Um, gamblers.

4:00: Hillary never held independent elective office until she ran for New York Senate. Until then, she was tied completely to her husband. The Lewinsky affair did launch her career.

This is not Lat's insight. It is a truism that has been stated by many political commentators.

"Any republican is a better choice than Hillary or Obama. A vote for either of them is a vote for bigger government and higher taxes."

**stifles guffaw**

Right, 'cause the Republicans have been SOOO good about cutting taxes and reducing the size of government. I mean, the Patriot Act seems to have made the government so small, it's like I can't even tell what it's doing anymore! And look how the middle class has grown under Bush. We make up a whole 5% of the population now!

If you had an ounce of consistency you'd be voting for Ron Paul, the ONLY candidate who has put forth any actual plans for reducing the size of government. Hell, I would probably vote for him if *he* were more consistent and didn't have that bizarre puritanical-moralist streak that drives all these asshats to try to restrict people's liberties even when what they are doing doesn't hurt a damn fly.

"Help us, Obama-Wan, you're our only hope!"

Actually, that's Obama won, as in Iowa and soon to be New Hampshire

["Source?" (Current odds run at 1.2-1 that the GOP retains the WH)]

The current odds of bookmakers that I could find were in the realm of 1/2 payout for a bet that Democrats will win and a payout of 3/2 that a Repbulican will win. As in a Democratic bet of $100 would net you $150 (including your bet), while a bet on republicans would net you $250 (including your bet).

"There's nothing sadder than a filipino queen trying to be an Angry White Male. I guess this is what "conservatism" has been reduced to in this country . . ."

Replace queen with queer and I'll give you an Amen.

4:08, what on earth does Lewinsky have to do with Hillary's senate run? She would have run even if her husband weren't a philandering creep. Do you mean to suggest she wouldn't have won if not for Lewinsky? That's kind of an unhelpful assertion, since it's nontestable. Anyway, you Hillary-haters ought to recognize that *everything* the woman has done since college has been a calculated political move to get her where she is and hopes to be. Anyone who thinks for a second she was some wallflower First Lady who didn't get political until her husband got impeached is either deluded or wilfully ignorant.

4:01:

You do nothing to bolster my optimism about the current (very sad) crop of future lawyers.

You are the epitome of douchebaggery. Not to mention a racist and homophobe, probably out of denial of your own attraction to men.

"Hillary never held independent elective office until she ran for New York Senate. Until then, she was tied completely to her husband."

Since when is actually holding elective office the only thing that means someone has a "political career"? I know a LOT of Hill staffers who would take issue with that suggestion.

What's with the people complaining that Lat is biased? You've got a problem with the fact that Lat likes HRC more than Obama? So?

This is silly blog where Lat, all the time, expresses his silly little preferences (sometimes fickle, sometimes not) for one person or thing over another. And that's why I enjoy it. And that's why all of you thinking that ATL is an objective news source for unbiased coverage and commentary are idiots.

Why do so many think Hillary is unelectable? I'm genuinely curious.

The only reason Hillary married Bill was because she planned from the very beginning on him becoming President one day. She has managed his whole life to get herself to this point. She is the one that kept him from being destroyed in all of the various sex scandals he was involved in. She is the one that covered up his rapes and sexual assaults over the years. She is the one that made him go back and run for governor of Arkansas again after getting kicked out after his first term. She has been the driving force behind the whole Clinton machine.

"The current odds of bookmakers that I could find were in the realm of 1/2 payout for a bet that Democrats will win and a payout of 3/2 that a Repbulican will win. As in a Democratic bet of $100 would net you $150 (including your bet), while a bet on republicans would net you $250 (including your bet)."

3:57, that means the odds FAVOR the Dems winning. You get a lower payout if Dems win because it is the less risky bet.

3:57, if your odds are accurate, that means bookmakers are giving better odds to induce bettors to bet Republican. I.e., the gambling market is predicting a Dem win. Facts sting, dude.

THIS BLOG SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SERVE THE BLOGGER'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA!

I AM DISGUSTED!

THIS BLOG SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SERVE THE BLOGGER'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA!

I AM DISGUSTED!

Hahaha, and there 4:20 goes illustrating my point.

THIS BLOG SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SERVE THE BLOGGER'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA!

I AM DISGUSTED!

"3:57, that means the odds FAVOR the Dems winning. You get a lower payout if Dems win because it is the less risky bet."

Well, duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh! You win the award for stating the obvious! Your special ed teacher would be so proud!

"Why do so many think Hillary is unelectable? I'm genuinely curious."

Have you not taken note of her high unfavorable rating? A lot of democrats don't like her. Compound this with the fact that republicans hate her and would come out in mass to oppose her even if they're not impressed with their nominee. This means (1) she won't get the full support of democrats and (2) she won't be able to reach across the aisle and bring in disillusioned republicans. End result = 4 more years of republican rule.

Lat,

Posts like these cheapen this blog, and threaten all you have accomplished with ATL.

There are plenty of people (far more qualified to speak on the matter than you) who will appear on tv regarding Hillary, Obama, etc. There are plenty of writers on the NYT staff (again, far more qualified than you) to discuss this in print.

However, few are more qualified than you to discuss the bread and butter postings on this blog. This is why you have been on tv; this is why you have seen such success in print. Turn yourself into a political mouthpiece and you enter a sphere where you become just another voice in a very crowded room, all while boxing yourself out of opportunities because you confused your keyboard for a soapbox.

Preserve ATL, preserve your niche and, ultimately, preserve your relevance. Keep your politics off this blog.

Obama '08! How can Hillary proclaim to be the candidate of change when (1) she voted for the war in Iraq; and (2) she gave her Iowa speech with Bill and Madeleine Albright on stage with her - this doesn't demonstrate change, but rather demonstrates a resistance to the politics of Clinton past!

"3:57, if your odds are accurate, that means bookmakers are giving better odds to induce bettors to bet Republican. I.e., the gambling market is predicting a Dem win. Facts sting, dude."

Thanks for looking that up for me. I made the whole 1.2-1 thing up. I guess we don't stand a chance. Just forget I said anything. I'm embarrased.

Common Bloomberg!!

"Law professors and the media elite love the professorial Mr. Obama."

Very well-put. Clinton and Edwards just get too upset and fevered. It's distasteful.

For clarity's sake, 3:57 and contrite are two different people.

Common Bloomberg? What does that mean? If you were trying to say "Come on Bloomberg" that would have made some sense. He is predicted to steal votes from the Dems and help the Republican nominee win, which is perfectly fine for me. It would be payback for what Ross Perot did to Bush Sr. back in 1992.

Hillary - Bill = Who? Exactly.

3:57:

Give it up; you made a mistake, dude. It's not the end of the world.

Obama girl has som phat azz tig bitties!

"Posts like these cheapen this blog, and threaten all you have accomplished with ATL. "

1. ATL is a gossip blog. It's very essence is to be cheap.

2. With the comment traffic this post is generating relative to the other posts, there's no reason for Lat to lay off the politics. Politics generates traffic, which is Lat's measure of success (and what pays his rent).

Wow, Hillary supporters are really losing it.

Obama's rise is really refreshing, the kind of stuff that puts a "pep in your step" when you start the day.

I don't check the site all too much, but this one really caught me off guard.

3:57, check back later so 4:22 & I can explain the concept of a point spread to you, so you don't lose your shirt betting this weekend.

Are we supposed to believe Hillary was showing genuine emotion in that video? C'mon, this is all a farce.

Also, did she get cheek implants?

Praise Jesus and crimialize abortions. I want to thank all of the Talibangelicals for coming out to support me on my way to the Oval Office.

In Jesus' name we pray

Eric Cartman, okay, I can accept that Dems and Repubs don't like her. But does anyone know *why*?

Wow, even Lat has turned into a GOP troll. As if Fed Soc wasn't enough.

Personally, I hope the GOP nominee is Huckleberry. Nothing will be funnier than seeing a hard-core Christian conservative getting the snot beaten out of him in the general election.

Thank Gawd and praise Jeeesus that SOMEONE has had the gumption to publish a contrarian point of view regarding Osama, sorry, Obama.

I am voting for Ralph Wiggum.

4:23, 4:40 and 4:59, what are you talking about? Here is the chain of events: (1) Some dumb ass says that the current spread for republicans over democrats is 1.2-1. (2) Either the same dumb ass or another dumb ass says the spread came from gamblers. (3) I looked up the actual spread and posted it, corrected the two previous dumbasses. I even included the actual payouts for a fictional $100 bet so additional dumbasses who couldn't understand spreads would be able to understand. (4) An additional dumbass then decides he needs to explain to me that a higher payout means more risk. (5) I respond with "DUUUUUHHHHHH!" (6) Someone calling himself "contrite" posts claiming responsibility as the original dumbass that posted the whole 1.2-1 crap to begin with.

Dear 5:03:

Yea, but what if he goes up against Obama and wins?

The intangible racism in America element has yet to be tested.

I fear any breathing Rebublican nominee will beat Osama.

5:00 - I've been wondering about Hillary's cheeks too! As for the crying bit - is this what it's come down to . . . the Clinton's crying b/c they didn't win! COME ON! Sadly, to all those who think women can't be strong leaders because they are "overly emotional," Hillary has made the argument for them.

"Personally, I hope the GOP nominee is Huckleberry. Nothing will be funnier than seeing a hard-core Christian conservative getting the snot beaten out of him in the general election."

Huckabee is definitely a Christian, but he is far from a "hard core Conservative". He raised taxes and established an entitlement plan for illegal immigrants in his state. Those are very liberal credentials. The only real conservative even running for President this year is Fred Thompson. The rest have all had fairly liberal records, compared to a real conservative.

5:09(1), if all that is true, why do you keep identifying yourself as 3:57 (i.e., the original poster a/k/a "Some dumb ass [who] says that the current spread for republicans over democrats is 1.2-1."

Unless you are really 3:57(2), in which case you are still a dumbass, but for different reasons.

Republican,

Hickabee is a hardcore conservative! I don't hear any of the other candidates looking to "criminalize abortions" via having criminal charges brought against those physicians performing the procedure.

Hickabee is a bible-thumping arse!

I am 3:57(2), which means I am a dumbass for different reasons. You got me, I guess.

"

Dear 5:03:

Yea, but what if he goes up against Obama and wins?

The intangible racism in America element has yet to be tested.

I fear any breathing Rebublican nominee will beat Osama."

I thought so too, then he went and won Iowa, which is 3% African American. New Hampshire ain't exactly a melting pot either...believe it or not, Barrack has more than a fighting chance.

5:20, most of the Republican candidates think the physician should be the person held criminally responsible for violating any anti-abortion law in place (rather than the woman). Abortion is not the end-all be-all of conservative issues either. It isn't even that important to many Republicans. I personally care much more about cutting taxes and spending, on defense and on the war on terror. Abortion is just about the least important issue ever as far as I am concerned. Who cares if some woman wants to prevent another unwanted person from being born. There are too many people on this planet to begin with.

Everyone keeps saying Hill is a calculating bitch like it's a bad thing. I want a calculating bitch in the oval office to kick some ass and get things done.

I'm with Lat, if loving her is wrong I don't wanna be right.

"Sadly, to all those who think women can't be strong leaders because they are "overly emotional," Hillary has made the argument for them."

Oh lovely. More sexist trollage. I love how as soon as any woman in the public eye does anything that someone finds unpalatable, suddenly, magically, that is an argument that all women are unfit for whatever it is that woman does.

I have an idea. Let's play the game in reverse! O.J. Simpson is proof that men shouldn't be football players! Saddam Hussein is proof that men shouldn't lead countries! Jim Jones is proof that men shouldn't be religious leaders! John McEnroe is proof that men shouldn't be tennis players (so overemotional)! Michael Jackson is proof that men shouldn't be pop stars (sorry, JT)! Tom Cruise is proof that men shouldn't be movie stars! Dick Cheney is proof that men shouldn't be hunters!!

Yeah! Whenever anyone messes anything up, let's just blame it on their gender! That's a smart way to do things!

"I thought so too, then he went and won Iowa, which is 3% African American. New Hampshire ain't exactly a melting pot either...believe it or not, Barrack has more than a fighting chance."

5:29, unfortunately, it's quite possible that's just as much due to sexism, i.e., they were voting AGAINST Hillary, rather than FOR Obama.

"I have an idea. Let's play the game in reverse! O.J. Simpson is proof that men shouldn't be football players! Saddam Hussein is proof that men shouldn't lead countries! Jim Jones is proof that men shouldn't be religious leaders! John McEnroe is proof that men shouldn't be tennis players (so overemotional)! Michael Jackson is proof that men shouldn't be pop stars (sorry, JT)! Tom Cruise is proof that men shouldn't be movie stars! Dick Cheney is proof that men shouldn't be hunters!!"

How about this: Hillary Clinton is proof that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President!

5:35, people don't vote against Hillary because she is a woman. They vote against her because she is Hillary Clinton, the most widely hated woman of the past 20 years.

5:29:

Winning the DEMOCRATIC primary in Iowa is not the same as carrying Iowa in the general election.

We who live on either coast have no idea how different middle America is except for painful reminders every 4 years.

Contrary to te current Obama slogan, we are two Americas.

If you have ever looked closely, most of the blue states could be annexed by Canada and would still leave two contiguous nations. I'm just saying, its a thought. Then we wouldn't have to deal with the red states any more. Let them have the rest of the country. Good riddance.

People hate Hillary because she is a powerful woman and had the audacity to worry about more than white house decorating. If she were a man she wouldn't get nearly as much crap as she has been getting for being cold or calculating.

I am thinking more along the lines of California annexing Baja California, the succeeding from the union and forming a sovereign state, taking most of the GNP with us.

NY, and other select east coast states can join us.

What would Nebraska and Iowa (not to mention the south) be then?

Chicago Tribune | Obama opposes gay marriage
By Nicole Ziegler Dizon
Associated Press Writer
Published September 24, 2004, 3:23 PM CDT

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his Christian beliefs dictate that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions that give legal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Republican candidate Alan Keyes accused Obama of trying to have it both ways on the issue. "I think what we are seeing on this issue is deceit,'' said Keyes, who has made his opposition to gay marriage a cornerstone of his campaign. "He is deceiving the voters.''

Throughout the campaign, Obama has said that he opposes gay marriage but is in favor of civil unions. During a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue,'' he was asked his personal views on gay marriage. "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said. But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution.

People say a bitch is a "powerful woman" like people say a physically unattractive person has a "great personality". Hillary Clinton is a powerful woman with a great personality.

"I personally care much more about cutting taxes and spending, on defense and on the war on terror. Abortion is just about the least important issue ever as far as I am concerned. Who cares if some woman wants to prevent another unwanted person from being born. There are too many people on this planet to begin with."

5:29(2), sorry to break it to you, but that makes you a Libertarian, not a Republican. The Republicans haven't stood for small government for a couple decades at least. And given the fact that the party is basically run by the crazy right these days, that really should make you more of a Democrat, because both parties are going to tax you to death and waste your money on bullshit government programs, but at least the Democrats don't want to send you to jail for having recreational, non-procreative sex (especially outside of heterosexual marriage!), to boot.

"What would Nebraska and Iowa (not to mention the south) be then?"

Uh, we would still have the largest banks (Charlotte). You wouldn't have enough farmland to grow food for the huge population you would be supporting or the power plants to produce the electricity you would consume. We would have most of the military bases, manufacturing facilities, oil production and refining, power plants, farmland, etc. You would have most of the pollution and wouldn't have anywhere to keep all your garbage. Sounds like a pretty fair trade-off to me.

There's nothing sadder than a filipino queen trying to be an Angry White Male. I guess this is what "conservatism" has been reduced to in this country . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | January 7, 2008 04:01 PM

4:01:

You do nothing to bolster my optimism about the current (very sad) crop of future lawyers.

You are the epitome of douchebaggery. Not to mention a racist and homophobe, probably out of denial of your own attraction to men.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 7, 2008 04:15 PM

Actually, the same could be said of Lat. See, e.g.,
January 23, 2006
In re: "Those 'Happy Homos'"
Some of you may have read this interesting New York Times profile of David B. Lat, who serves as Article III Groupie's mouthpiece to the world. Lat has some corrections, clarifications, and comments on Jonathan Miller's article, which should hopefully appear in these pages in the near future.

For the time being, however, A3G would like to defend David Lat against a specific accusation that has been leveled against him by some who have read the article. If you've met David Lat in person, you know that although he's a genial and pleasant fellow, he's a bit of a wimp. This is why he needs a strong woman -- to wit, Article 3 Groupie -- to rush to his aid.

Miller writes:

[Lat] skipped the sixth grade, and attended Regis High School, the prestigious all-boys Catholic high school in Manhattan, where he gained a reputation as a skilled debater (he sang the Banana Boat song when he delivered a speech about Haitian refugees). From there he went on to Harvard, where he socialized little while earning a degree in English and adopted a conservative worldview, writing lacerating opinion columns for The Harvard Crimson.

He declared, among other things, that campus liberals had no "no broad, overarching philosophy." He lamented the revocation of Ireland's ban on divorce, and repeatedly castigated the school's Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Student Association.

In one column, entitled "Those 'Happy Homos,'" he wrote: "National Coming Out Day is just another event in the recent rash of identity-based pride rallies. These alleged celebrations of diversity have devolved into mutual masturbation festivals. They reassure people who are still deeply troubled by their lifestyle choices and are desperately seeking a stamp of approval. We have a duty to deny them this approval."

Those statements brought a harsh rebuke from members of the organization in a subsequent letter to the editor that called the column "spiteful and logically vapid."

Based on the foregoing, some of you have accused David Lat of being "homophobic." Much could be said on this subject; but for present purposes, suffice it to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

Just as Samuel Alito should not be judged based on statements in a job application from 20 years ago, Lat should not be judged based on his (literally) sophomoric ramblings in a college newspaper, from over a decade ago. These "youthful indiscretions" -- of a hotheaded, rabble rousing campus conservative -- should not be viewed as an accurate reflection of who Lat is today. Nor do they represent the views he currently holds on such issues as homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.

Also, for the record, the reference in the column's title to "Happy Homo[s]" -- which could be viewed as derisive or derogatory -- should not be ascribed to Lat. If you read the column in its entirety, you'll see that the title was merely quoting from posters that were put up around the Harvard campus by the BGLSA.

More on this subject may follow in a subsequent post. But for the time being, A3G wanted to get these thoughts into circulation, to stop the flood of hate mail that poor Mr. Lat has been receiving from people who believe, incorrectly, that he harbors some animosity towards gay Americans (or, for that matter, gay persons of any nationality).

"5:29(2), sorry to break it to you, but that makes you a Libertarian, not a Republican. The Republicans haven't stood for small government for a couple decades at least. And given the fact that the party is basically run by the crazy right these days, that really should make you more of a Democrat, because both parties are going to tax you to death and waste your money on bullshit government programs, but at least the Democrats don't want to send you to jail for having recreational, non-procreative sex (especially outside of heterosexual marriage!), to boot."

You make a valid point. I do share many viewpoints with Libertarians, but the fact is they have no chance of electing anyone President anytime soon. At least some of the current Republican candidates are talking about cutting spending, and the Democrats will definitely raise my taxes while the Republicans won't. The Republicans also won't create some monstrosity of a government-run universal healthcare system that will definitely result in raising my taxes.

I would be more than happy for government to stay out of people's bedrooms (and to legalize drugs for that matter), but I can put up with it if they will just keep my taxes down.

5:29/6:16 -- yikes. The politicians are "talking about" doing things and, based on that, you're willing to sell out your fellow Americans who don't live a perfectly Puritan life? That's a little troubling. For one thing, "politician" is virtually synonymous with "liar" -- I absolutely sympathize with the desire to believe politicians when they say they will cut taxes, but actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen Republican actions pleasing to my libertarian heart for... well, come to think of it, I don't even know how long. I surmise from your note that you "can put up with it" that you're a heterosexual male. Which is fine. Some of my best friends are heterosexual men. But it's a little selfish for you to say "hey, I can live with it" when we women and gays have been seeing a terrifying encroachment on our basic liberties in recent years, with the promise of even more horrifying SCOTUS appointments if a Republican wins the nomination. I love my money as much as the next person, but my money won't do me any good if I'm not allowed to live my life the way I want.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in this post.

You didn't even pretend to make it about the law by referencing the fact that Obama went to HLS and Clinton went to Yale.

Even your former employers at Wonkette don't blatantly kiss-ass like this.

It seems clear to me that you are just wishing for a Clinton win so you can go work in the WH.

For shame.

What's the deal with Obama's background/religion? I recall a Hillary staffer got fired for forwarding an email alleging Obama is Muslim, because his camp considers that allegation to be a deliverately false fear-mongering bait claim.

But he does have (at least) one parent that is Muslim and (at least) one grandparent as well that's Muslim.

So, I don't get it, was he born Muslim and converted, or what? He went to school in Indonesia for a few years, according to his 1996 book. But what kind of school was it -- no, not was it a madrassa, but what type of religious instruction (if any) was given at that school?

My take on the whole choked-up, crying response:

IT HAS DONE HER IN. NO, NOT BECAUSE SHE "SHOWED EMOTION." BECAUSE THAT TYPE OF "IT'S SO SAD THAT I'M SO RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT" RESPONSE IS A **FUCKING LOSER ATTITUDE** THAT IS FOR THE WEAK AND UNSTABLE. IT IS A LOSER MENTALITY THAT ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTS ME AND IS NOT WHAT I WANT TO SEE IN MY PRESIDENT. I WANT A TWO-FISTED, STRONG BUT ANALYTICALLY WISE PERSON TO LEAD MY COUNTRY.

"5:29/6:16 -- yikes. The politicians are "talking about" doing things and, based on that, you're willing to sell out your fellow Americans who don't live a perfectly Puritan life? That's a little troubling. For one thing, "politician" is virtually synonymous with "liar" -- I absolutely sympathize with the desire to believe politicians when they say they will cut taxes, but actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen Republican actions pleasing to my libertarian heart for... well, come to think of it, I don't even know how long. I surmise from your note that you "can put up with it" that you're a heterosexual male. Which is fine. Some of my best friends are heterosexual men. But it's a little selfish for you to say "hey, I can live with it" when we women and gays have been seeing a terrifying encroachment on our basic liberties in recent years, with the promise of even more horrifying SCOTUS appointments if a Republican wins the nomination. I love my money as much as the next person, but my money won't do me any good if I'm not allowed to live my life the way I want."

It is just a lesser of two evils thing for me, and the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils from my point of view. At least they say what I want to hear, even if they don't always follow through. I'd rather hope someone is going to do what they say they are going to do (Republican) than hope someone won't do what they say they are going to do (Democrat).

I can definitely understand your point of view, though, and can see how the opposite conclusion could be drawn on your part. However, I really don't think there is much chance of a return to criminalizing homosexual relations regardless of who gets appointed to SCOTUS. As far as gay marriage goes, the most you can hope for there in the near term is for the federal government to let the states decide on their own. I don't think there will ever be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and I also don't think you are going to see federally-recognized gay marriage either (even if a Democrat makes it into the White House).

Red States, you could use a refresher in US geography:

"You wouldn't have enough farmland to grow food for the huge population you would be supporting or the power plants to produce the electricity you would consume."

Uh, you do know that it's CALIFORNIA that has the most productive agriculture in the country, don't you? It produces a full THIRD of the United States' food. California also has numerous large oil fields and substantial hydroelectric and other power-generating resources.

"We would have most of the military bases, manufacturing facilities, oil production and refining, power plants, farmland, etc."

Wrong again. See above re your energy/power misstatement. California has more air force bases than any other state except Texas, and more marine corps and navy bases than any other state in the country. New York and California both also have a substantial number of army bases. California is geographically the largest state in the union behind Alaska and Texas, and its climate and land are ideal for growing a large variety of plants. Not to mention, it produces better wine than any other state in the US (with apologies to Oregon's Willamette Valley, which admittedly beats California when it comes to pinot noir).

"You would have most of the pollution and wouldn't have anywhere to keep all your garbage"

California also has stricter environmental standards than the EPA. Once we were no longer tethered to the "dump-as-you-go" global-warming-denying red-staters, we could cut our pollution even more without as many gullible, pseudoscience-believing voters.

I used to be a total Obama cheerleader, because I thought he represented the politics of change and a move away from the nastiness that turned me off of politics years ago. But now that we've gotten into the thick of things, I see him bashing just as much as Hillary's camp. So my vote goes to HRC now.

636

not sure, but one can guess whether you were born an asswipe or converted to asswipism

All you liberals are such pussies. WAAHHHH...Lat's posting about politics...WAAAHHHH!!!!

It is not the "liberals" who are crying about this post.

I'm with Hillary. All of this Obama-mania is scary and the entire country should be cautious when there is a sudden wave of support. And it irks me that people are declaring that racism is dead in America because he carried 38% of the DEMOCRATIC caucus in Iowa. People need to really get to know someone before they nominate him as the only standing chance to save this country.

Drink the Kool-Aid... it's audacious.

To the jerk-off @7:00:

My question was a very legitimate question. Don't infer something from it that is not inferable. It's not even so bold as to be a politically incorrect question. It's a legitimate question that I'm sure is on many other people's minds. So get your trigger-happy finger off the "you're a racist for asking that question" gun.

1122

no one said you were a racist, just an asswipe

HILARY IS A CRY-BABY. COME ON LADY, GROW SOME AND KEEP THE TEARS INSIDE.

IS SHE GONNA GET ALL TEARED UP WHEN SHE IS NEGOTIATING FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC POLICY MATTERS - ITS NOT EASY HILARY BUT YOU JUMPED IN THE GAME SO QUIT WHINING

Hillary's campaign is now officially over. There is no crying allowed in a Presidential campaign, especially when you are crying about losing!

2:46(1) is clearly a white TTT dumbass who scored a 155 in his LSAT and blames it on affirmative action.

Barack was EIC of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. That means he graduated on the top 10% of his class. Law review exams are graded blindly.

Sorry that you're so TTT.

You could blame affirmative action all you want, but you can't change the fact that you're not only dumb, but RACIST. I can't decide which one is worse.

2:46(1) is clearly a white TTT dumbass who scored a 155 in his LSAT and blames it on affirmative action.

Barack was EIC of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. That means he graduated on the top 10% of his class. Law review exams are graded blindly.

You could blame affirmative action all you want, but you can't change the fact that you're not only dumb, but RACIST. I can't decide which one is worse.

The most important difference between Obama and Hilary is this simple fact: as a UofC Law School alum, if Obama goes on to win, I can say I had a class with the President of the US (a seminar, no less!). Experience, issues, etc., are all secondary.

Stick a fork in Hilldog. She is done.

HILLARY IS FAKE - this is why she needs a "HUMANIZING" moment. Lets get a real leader, not someone who is only where she is cos her husband was president!

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THESE DOPES WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BTWN. A CAUCUS AND A PRIMARY! TX

You may find my extensive review of Obama's book The Audacity of Hope of interest:

http://mathoda.com/archives/174