| With venom, beauty and love . . . |
[Jul. 6th, 2007|09:57 pm] |
Books reviews, politics and possibly brief surreally weird thoughts if have energy after the others.
Interesting that people keep saying "Hillary can't win." The most recent Newsweek had a poll. All 3 of the top dems beat every republican put up against them (Guliani,Romney, McCain, Thompson). All of them beat Romney by double digits. Hillary fared best of any against Guliani, iirc. Obama did best against McCain, where Hillary did worst. Thompson may be the republican standard bearer, and I admit his acting ability concerns me, but they all beat him handily, as well. This is good news. It should be pointed out that Hillary consistently got 50% or better. So much for all the suggestions that her negatives are too high and that she can't top the 50% threshold. And it should be noted that she, alone of everyone running in either party, has already had the full negative blast, hit-me-with-your-best-shot attacks thrown at her (tho even the basic, "we know you're a phony and dammit, you're a mormon!" attacks seem to be hurting Romney badly already) Tho of course the same article that discussed the poll discussed . . . whether Hillary could win or get a majority of voters given her high negatives. ::bangs head:: Given that *any* well-known dem is beating *any* republican, mostly at the high end or beyond the margin of error, perhaps we should just try to figure out which candidate we want and figure they'll win just fine if they have a decent campaign?
Hugely annoyed at the coverage of the Republican spin machine comparing Bush pardoning Libby to Clinton pardoning, well, anyone. Okay guys, here goes: Clinton never pardoned anyone who could have got him or anyone close to him in trouble. Neither has any President not named Bush. (Bush Sr. did it for six guys in Iran/Contra) In the Federalist Papers, which most conservatives are fond of, or say they are, it was suggested that Presidents who pardoned people in cases involving *them* should be impeached. But the LA Times and pretty much everyone I've heard other than Olberman and the night DJ's on KGO in San Francisco cover the comparisoms like it is a fair case; the Times actually covered this like it was the right point and the Clintons were big hypocrites for criticizing this pardon. My true level of anger shall not be voiced so I don't get a visit from the Gestapo who are there to protect our (and my!) freedom.
Speaking of, did anyone ever hear the US called "the Homeland" before 9/11? I didn't. Does anyone else think "Hitler/Nazi/Stalin/Soviets" every time they hear that?
Book reviews, mostly The Sixth Extinction by Terry Glavin but also finally finished Maledicte, Tooth and Claw w/positive comments on Nightingale's Lament (in progress) and negative ones on "The Case for Hillary Clinton" --the negativity is about the book, not her . . .( Pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, that I am meek and gentle with these butchers )
Too tired for further writing, now. Will hopefully later write about this being the 40th anniversary of the summer of love, which if nothing else is a great chance to think about the legacy of the 60's and the year that gave us the first two albums of The Doors and Jimi Hendrix, and Sgt Pepper's, and Surrealistic Pillow, and the label debut of Joplin w/Big Brother and the Holding Company, and . . . (for those of you wondering, no, I'm NOT old enough to remember this, but you get a nice feel for it just from watching some movies from the period, or reading the 40th anniversary rolling stone, and oh wow the music . . . )
And other things. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mojave_wolf's journal