comment #1

Rob says ...

Typical self esteem-era mom.

I'm sure she pushed little Hayden and Madison around in SUV strollers until they were 5.

Or, if she'd had kids 10 years later, she would have.

comment #2

AJW says ...

That piece is complete bullshit.

And, really, Carter?

comment #3

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Couldn't have put it more succinctly. With Obama
as a candidate...everybody, Republican and
Democrat focuses on the future, what we hope for
it to be and who's best qualified to lead us there.

With Hilary Clinton as a candidate, we're all
dragged backwards like slasher-movie victims,
kicking and screaming, clawing at the floor before we're thrown back into into a pool of
political blood previously spilled in the
Anti Vs. Pro Clinton wars. Any discussion of the
future we're preparing for our children? Forget
it. The 2008 campaign will more resemble a
direct-to-DVD "Alien Vs.Predator 3-Road To The
White House" Yeccchhh.

comment #4

Larry says ...

"It's about our kids." OMFG. I can't believe anyone would take such crap seriously, not even the one who wrote it. If Obama can get elected on such 100% mindless (and dishonest) cliches as what's quoted above, he is a miracle candidate.

comment #5

bo4pres says ...

Couldn't this be changed a little to make it more historically accurate? Maybe make it more like this:

Remember when we were young idealists, 18 years old, voting for the first time? Who was your first? The first candidate I voted for was Jimmy Carter. I felt empowered, like my vote mattered, like together, we could change the course of history. And we did, by voting in a candidate so weak it led to a period of conservative dominance rivaled by few others in history.

We've left a mess for our kids because we voted for Jimmy Carter: they'll never be able to own a home, they'll never have job security and they'll never be able to retire. Give your kids Barack Obama so that Romney or McCain can expose him as inexperienced and hollow.

Where did you go to college again, Jeff?

comment #6

T. Holly says ...

This year is the apex of the boomers' kids applying for college, so campus voting in November can pave the way for Obama. Obamakins and Demikins, no flea bag motelikins, no screaming hawkins.

comment #7

rocco says ...

This is the type of shit that HURTS Obama. Our kids will never be able to own a home? That may be the the most assinine thing I've read in the last week, and that includes your rant about sports fans. Wells, you fall for this hysterical shit? My god, if these are the "enlightened" people who comprise Obama's base then tag me out as I run to get myself a pinata and some malta, a 'Sex & the City' box set, and invite all of the hispanics and white women in my neighborhood over for a Hillary rally. Seriously.

There was another man who drew large crowds and inspired people with his impassioned words and colorful rhetoric. He brought about great change, perhaps the greatest in modern history.

The year was 1932. The place was Germany.

Obama is the antithesis of Hitler, however charged rhetoric and exclusive appeal to emotion are for the weak and FEEBLE-minded (those you so despise Jeff) and can and will only lead to trouble.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

Jimmy Carter: History's greatest monster.

comment #9

dre says ...

Rocco:

There was another man who drew large crowds and inspired people with his impassioned words and colorful rhetoric. He brought about great change, perhaps the greatest in modern history.

The year was 1963. The place was America. And his name was Dr. Martin Luther King.

If you want to compare Obama to Hitler (antithesis , I understand) I hope you don't mind the other comparison I just made.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Larry: Nothing's more dishonest than calling yourself a compassionate conservative, and being neither.

bo: Last time I checked, when Carter was President, the Vietnam War was behind us, Israel and Egypt managed to stop fighting, people still got paid what they were worth, American factories hired American labor, and were based in America. Oh, and our prisons weren't over-crowded with people who happened to have a dime-bag on them. Plus the ice-caps were still in good condition, and you actually got news and valid political discussion on tv.

comment #11

christian says ...

moviemaniac2002 has almost convinced me.
Alien Vs Predator 3? Holy shit no.

Carter was a good man in a bad job.

comment #12

Mr. Muckle says ...

Bullshit is the word, all right. This emotionality is not what is needed, and the dumbing down of the electorate obviously has not passed over Obama supporters either. It's frigging hopeless. People should live their lives and stop projecting their hopes on someone else, particularly on politicians (not to mention the movie bidness). It's a certain weird class of mentalists who think they can solve the world's problems through getting elected to the gummint. Never happened, never will happen. The world has problems. That's why they call it the world. (Get it? Mamet.)

comment #13

The Hoyk says ...

Paraphrasing urban legend, when someone says "do it for the children," that's when I reach for my revolver.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

rocco: "Our kids will never be able to own a home? That may be the the most assinine thing I've read in the last week, and that includes your rant about sports fans."

If you live in a big city, most kids can't even RENT a home!

"There was another man who drew large crowds and inspired people with his impassioned words and colorful rhetoric. He brought about great change, perhaps the greatest in modern history.The year was 1932. The place was Germany."

That wasn't really "change", though, since that kind of thing had been going on in Europe for centuries. In fact, the fact that he embraced the familiar nationalist values which had gotten Germany in hot water the first time was what won people over.

"Obama is the antithesis of Hitler, however charged rhetoric and exclusive appeal to emotion are for the weak and FEEBLE-minded"

The irony is that Hitler felt the same way, which is really how he was able to win people over. It wasn't by appealing to their desire for change, but by tapping into their fear of the changes which they were experiencing in their country.

Hoyk: "It's frigging hopeless. People should live their lives and stop projecting their hopes on someone else, particularly on politicians"

Living our lives without being concerned who wins is why we're in this mess in the first place.

"It's a certain weird class of mentalists who think they can solve the world's problems through getting elected to the gummint. Never happened, never will happen."

FDR resolved an entire world war.

comment #15

bo4pres says ...

D.Z.- The Vietnam War is still behind us. Does Bill Clinton get credit for that? How about W? I guess I'll give them both credit since you gave Carter credit. I won't go into an issue vs. issue debate with you about Carter. I'll just point out that America loved him so much that Reagan beat him 489 Electoral Votes to 49 in 1980.

comment #16

rocco says ...

Nice, Muckle.

Yes, no worries dre...

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

bo: "I won't go into an issue vs. issue debate with you about Carter. I'll just point out that America loved him so much that Reagan beat him 489 Electoral Votes to 49 in 1980"

Yeah, and Americans love driving while using cell phones. That doesn't mean they know any better, though.

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

"There was another man who drew large crowds and inspired people with his impassioned words and colorful rhetoric. He brought about great change, perhaps the greatest in modern history.

The year was 1932. The place was Germany.

Obama is the antithesis of Hitler, however charged rhetoric and exclusive appeal to emotion are for the weak and FEEBLE-minded (those you so despise Jeff) and can and will only lead to trouble."

This is without a doubt the dumbest and most depressing thing I've ever read. I've yet to see even an archconservative sink that low. Cynicism taken to a sickening level. All persuasive speech is evil? I'm just not there yet, sorry.

comment #19

AJW says ...

Cell phones while driving = incumbent president getting 10x fewer electoral votes than his opponent? I had no idea.

And, with his harping on the uneducated Hillary supporters, where did Wells go to college?

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

AJW: "Cell phones while driving = incumbent president getting 10x fewer electoral votes than his opponent? I had no idea."

Yep. Same sense of entitlement.

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

Garrison Keillor just endorsed Obama.

That's it, I'm back to being a Republican.

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

If you live in a big city, most kids can't even RENT a home!

Did they tear them all down?

No, they're too expensive because... the market for them is really strong. Because so many people are renting and buying already. The market is so crowded nobody goes there any more!

D.Z., the Yogi Berra of economics.

comment #23

le corbeau says ...

"We've left a mess for our kids: they'll never be able to own a home

Of course, I suppose it would be too much for anyone to actually look at Google for two seconds and determine that, in fact, home ownership is at an historical high:

1960: 62.1% of US households
1970: 64.2%
1980: 65.6%
1990: 63.9%
2000: 67.4%
2007, 68.1%

But remember, we're living in the worst of times!

comment #24

DarthCorleone says ...

With the Hitler comparison, I'd say that Godwin's Law is now officially in effect. However, somehow I doubt the Hollywood Elsewhere crowd will cease belaboring the merits and weaknesses of Obama, particularly this obsession with the lack of concrete discussion of his platform in lieu of this abstract "hope" that so many of you critique in Obama's supporters.

I've read quite a few of the Obama threads on this site, and ultimately there seems to be more than enough of Macbeth's sound and fury to go around.

I'm not going to claim that pinning your vote on this emotion is an intelligent sole basis for your decision. Far from it. Of course we should identify the issues that matter and the candidate's positions and solutions for these issues.

But does that mean that "hope" is a completely valueless currency? I do not believe that it is. As Andy Dufresne says, "Hope is a good thing. Perhaps the best of things." Hope might be an abstract reason to vote for someone, but it is not useless.

Hope inspires. Hope can mobilize people and have a very practical effect. Hope can bring people together. An effective orator might be just that - an orator - but if the net effect of his words is a positive one, does it really matter how he inspired? Are all the vitriolic bumper stickers that have slammed Clinton and Bush over the years good for our nation's psyche and morale? Youngsters voting for the first time this year do not even remember a country in which we didn't have that sort of divisive shit.

Parsing Hillary and Barack with respect to the issues is not going to render much differentiation. So why do we have to be so goddamn condescending to each other about the ways in which we do differentiate them?

One person believes Barack is more inspiring. Another person believes that Hillary's experience on the national and international stages is invaluable. Someone else does not think that this dynastic trend in Presidential politics is good for a healthy democracy, or maybe they think that Hillary is too much of a "politician." Yet another person thinks that we had great days in this country under Clinton, and consequently putting the Clintons back in the White House can only be a good thing.

I'm sorry, but at this point in my mind those are all valid reasons to support one over the other if all you care about is leaving Iraq, appointing pro-choice Supreme Court justices, making health care more accessible, speeding up environmental protections, or whatever else might be your pet issue. Of course, even if those are your pet issues, there are no guarantees that our checks and balances will allow any President to bring about the much ballyhooed "change" with respect to those issues that is promised.

Whomever you support, go out and vote tomorrow, folks. Just please make it an informed vote.

comment #25

AJW says ...

Mgmax, I described the initial piece as "complete bullshit", but you missed the point that Brookline Mom is talking about people who are not currently looking to buy houses.

She is overlooking the fact(?) that by the time her college student graduates, then rents for a couple/few years before deciding to buy a house, the current era of prices which violate their fundamental relationship with income will be finished.

Also, you should have looked at different intervals and noted the acceleration/deceleration in home-ownership growth. Do you think 2007 was the end of the slump and the rate won't drop below the 2000 level? Do you not give free money and terrible loans, which we should not return to in a long time, at least some of the credit for our current historical highs?

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "No, they're too expensive because... the market for them is really strong."

Actually, the market for them is tepid, because they're overpriced pieces of shit which no one would be caught dead living in; but they can charge whatever they want, because there's no competition, since they own most of the real estate.

"Of course, I suppose it would be too much for anyone to actually look at Google for two seconds and determine that, in fact, home ownership is at an historical high"

It's as likely to be considered ownership as indentured servitude is to be considered a form of freedom.

comment #27

Josh Massey says ...

There was another man who drew large crowds and inspired people with his impassioned words and colorful rhetoric. He brought about great change, perhaps the greatest in modern history.

The year was 0. The place was Judea. And his name was Brian.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

AJW, you're trying to make a complex point out of a simple one.

Every time people whine about the economy, it turns out to be, by objective measures, in the best shape of their lifetimes, no matter this or that problem. Home ownership is at a high, unemployment is within a point of its modern low and lower than nearly the entire 1970-1995 era, inflation is extremely low... none of which, of course, prevents DZ from making absurd attempts to weasel out of inconvenient facts ("THEY own most of the real estate"-- who, the Jews? The Venusians? Dastardly McSnarl, the evil mortgage king throwing little girls without coats out into the cold?)

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

"like together, we could change the course of history"

Implicit in that statement is that, "by together, I mean, let Carter do all the work, but once he made such a botch of things, I gave up. I've been looking for someone to hand things off to ever since. Obama seems to be the guy."

Nowhere in that piece do I see any mention of anything that Brookline Mom has done to make her dream of a better tomorrow come true. Nowhere does she say, "I busted my hump. I got out there and volunteered. I've driven a Civic for the past 30 years. And my leaders let me down."

She doesn't say it because she probably didn't do it. We hold our salvation within ourselves, not within the promise of some messiah. Or at least that's what Jeffrey Wells tells me when he's off on one of his anti-religion rants.

comment #30

T. S. Idiot says ...

My wife and I were the first at our polling place this morning, giving HRC an early 2-0 lead in NJ.

comment #31

JHRussell says ...

How will an Obama presidency bring down the price of houses? I don't get the connection the lib mom is making...

Will Obama create a home ownership entitlement program? Why not an HD TV entitlement program to go along with it...

comment #32

le corbeau says ...

JHRussell! How dare you ask concrete questions about policy at the Obama Love-In!

I look forward to increased government interference in the housing market making it more efficient and open to all. You bet. And none of this stuff about unqualified borrowers defaulting, either! Not with the government handing out money on street corners, nope. that'd never happen.

comment #33

MathewM says ...

Obama will win California but lose most of the rest of the delegates today. Across the nation, angry and unhappy women will vote for Hillary. Here in Missouri which I believe is a good barometer for the country in general, Hillary is the candidate women are talking about. It will be interesting to see what happens if she picks Obama as her running mate. I'm not sure who McCain could pick that would give the same one-two punch. I'm guessing he'll pick Huckabee to secure the southern, white Christian base.

comment #34

rocco says ...

Uh, yeah Burma, except I plan on voting for Obama if he wins the nomination...the comparison wasn't between Obama and Adolf, but between the feeble-minded people who enabled the birth of Nazi germany and the feeble-minded people in America who are swayed SOLELY by Obama's emotional petition. Wells' original posting is one of the least informed, most pitiful and depressing things I have ever heard called "moving and conscisely-stated". Frankly, only a moron could be moved by such junior-high-school-reading-level nonsense, and I now truely question Jeff's intelligence.

Drivel like that is evidence that emotion trumps reason and logic...sometimes thats a good thing, but certainly NOT when choosing the leader of the free world.

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

Hey, read this:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3633

This guy makes the mathematical case that it's essentially impossible, barring a total blowout today which is incredibly unlikely, for either Democratic candidate to exit the primary season with enough delegates to win.

No matter who wins what today, they'll remain within about 7% of each other in pledged delegates. And there's no reason to think the remaining primaries will change that. The superdelegates will decide who the nominee is based on who they think can win in November and who will help other candidates up and down the ticket (and, of course, many superdelegates are themselves candidates).

There was a time when that would have meant Hillary was the nominee. Now I think it means that she is very unlikely to be.

comment #36

MathewM says ...

"Frankly, only a moron could be moved by such junior-high-school-reading-level nonsense, and I now truely question Jeff's intelligence."

Jeff is part of the Hollywood establishment. His daily decisions are mostly swayed by the side of the bed that George Clooney gets out of.

comment #37

AJW says ...

Mgmax, I think you're simplifying a complex issue. "The home-ownership rate improves over time." That's essentially what you've demonstrated, but I'm not sure if that's what you think your simple point is. Your 10-year markers make little sense given that they come at different points in the business cycle and different points in the housing market's fluctuations. My main issue with your initial home-ownership post: the rate has only improved by 1.0% over the past 7 years (compared with 3.4% in your 1st arbitrary period, 2.2% in the 2nd, and 5.5% from '90-'00), and that was driven largely by the market straying drastically from its fundamentals. How can you look past that?

The CPI increased 4.1% in 2007, its biggest surge since 1990, with a SAAR of 5.6% in the 4th quarter. That's extremely low? Even core inflation lies above the Fed's comfort zone.

Also, with productivity improvement and/or population growth GDP will increase. Why should the median person care, though, if the gains are going much farther up the food chain? GDP can be soaring and the majority of people's lives can still be unaffected or worse. Same with the employment rate, which ignores real wages and discounts discouraged workers.

I'm not sure why you single out GDP, the unemployment rate and inflation as "objective measures". Yes, they attempt to summarize the entire macro-economy, but that's also their weakness since there exists great variation within such a complex system.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Every time people whine about the economy, it turns out to be, by objective measures, in the best shape of their lifetimes, no matter this or that problem."

Only if they have decent jobs.

"Home ownership is at a high,"

Foreclosures may be at a high, too.

"unemployment is within a point of its modern low and lower than nearly the entire 1970-1995 era,"

But it hasn't compensated for the greatest job loss since the Depression.

'"THEY own most of the real estate"-- who, the Jews? The Venusians?'

No, just rich speculators who need to keep the poor and working class from living in the same city in which they work, that's all...

Rich: 'Implicit in that statement is that, "by together, I mean, let Carter do all the work, but once he made such a botch of things, I gave up. I've been looking for someone to hand things off to ever since. Obama seems to be the guy."'

Carter didn't do anything wrong when he was President. She probably meant that she wanted someone to continue his vision.

'Nowhere in that piece do I see any mention of anything that Brookline Mom has done to make her dream of a better tomorrow come true. Nowhere does she say, "I busted my hump. I got out there and volunteered. I've driven a Civic for the past 30 years. And my leaders let me down."'

Nowhere in your rants have I seen you willing to do any of these things, either.

"We hold our salvation within ourselves, not within the promise of some messiah."

Yeah, those flooded black people in New Orleans need to stop relying on hand-outs.

"And none of this stuff about unqualified borrowers defaulting, either!"

How about the lenders who exploited those unqualified borrowers?

JHR: "How will an Obama presidency bring down the price of houses?"

He'll probably force realtors to charge their market value for houses again.

"Will Obama create a home ownership entitlement program? Why not an HD TV entitlement program to go along with it..."

Yeah, military families who fought in WW2 shouldn't have gotten housing entitlements, either.

comment #39

le corbeau says ...

Look, it's really simple.

DZ, Christian, John Edwards say everything sucks in a way unprecedented since the Great Depression.

I, who lived through the double-digit inflation and unemployment of the 70s, point out that in fact by lots of measures lots of things are near the best they've ever been-- and despite your comments about "gains higher up the food chain," I deliberately chose broad-based indicators which cannot by definition be skewed by the rich, such as employment and home ownership. Now you're trying to get around that with a flurry of statistics, but really, it's this simple. Inflation is pretty low. Unemployment is near its lowest point in the last quarter-century. Home ownership is at its highest ever. And yes, the stock market is still relatively close to a high even after recent drops, and over half the population participates in that to some degree via 401ks, pension funds, etc.

It's really that simple.

comment #40

T. S. Idiot says ...

"I'm not saying you never had it so good, but that is the truth, isn't it." Lyndon B. Johnson in Brian DePalma's Greetings

comment #41

le corbeau says ...

"unemployment is within a point of its modern low and lower than nearly the entire 1970-1995 era,"

But it hasn't compensated for the greatest job loss since the Depression.

D.Z., this is why you're such a tomato can to spar with. Think about what you just said. You just said, if the unemployment rate was 5.0% before, and a bunch of people got thrown out of work and it rose to 6.3%, and now it's back to 4.9% (those are all accurate figures by the way), that it hasn't "compensated" for the rise to 6.3% yet. That's exactly what it HAS done.

Of course you're also full of shit about that being the worst job loss since the Depression; perhaps if you looked at actual numbers, and didn't type faster than you can think, you'd see that the post-9/11 rise from 5% to 6.3% at its worst is substantially smaller than the jump in 1974-1975 (from around 5% to 9%) or 1980-1 (from around 7.5% to almost 11%).

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/unrate

comment #42

JHRussell says ...

DZ, you really are an idiot.

Realtors don't set the market value of homes. The market made up of motivated buyers and sellers sets market value.

And "Carter didn't do anything wrong when he was President..." WTF? How old are you? Did you live through his presidency? Holy shit, man, he was the most incompetent president of the last 100 years, and that is why he served just one term.

comment #43

le corbeau says ...

Did I mention that it's really that simple? Sorry for chanting that like a Krishna. Delete one of your choice.

comment #44

Bocephus says ...

Rather than uninformed speculation about what Obama plans to do to help the economy, perhaps it might be best to go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ and http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass/ where you can actually read about their positions? They are pretty much running on identical platforms, with Obama's goals being slightly more attainable and bipartisan. For instance, Hillary has proposed a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a 5-year freeze on ARM rates. Does this seem realistic to anyone? Also, Hillary doesn't even address the issue of irresponsible lenders and what to do with them.

McCain doesn't touch the sub-prime crisis, his answers to our economic problems don't go much further than "more tax cuts."

comment #45

christian says ...

Mgmax, if you think the poor, the middle class and the economy aren't in a bad way, then I don't know what. You've been denying it even as your boy Bush finally admits it.

How much mileage do you get out of comparing folks living under worse conditions in the past? Does the homeless veteran of 2008 give a shit that people were worse off in 1933? It's such bizarre logic:

"I just lost my job to an outsoucing company."

"Well, if you were in Rome you'd be a slave. Suck it down."

comment #46

AJW says ...

"I, who lived through the double-digit inflation and unemployment of the 70s, point out that in fact by lots of measures lots of things are near the best they've ever been-- and despite your comments about "gains higher up the food chain," I deliberately chose broad-based indicators which cannot by definition be skewed by the rich, such as employment and home ownership."

I notice you left GDP out of that. Smart.

What does the unemployment rate tell us? What does the employment:population ratio tell us? Nothing about what people earn. In 2006, on average, real incomes among each of the bottom three quintiles of households were lower than they were in 2000.

You don't think there may have existed underlying factors that artificially propped up the home-ownership rate?

We just experienced the highest December-to-December increase in the price level since 1990. That's not good. It's not the '70s, but it's not good. If I, and the general population, instantaneously received a 4% raise it wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, I have to wait until the end of the fiscal year and even then have no guarantee that the bump will be so high.

comment #47

christian says ...

Stephen King on exactly what's wrong with this election:

Do the candidates' programs and promises count? A little, but what really plays is Hillary misting up and Mike Huckabee plucking his bass guitar. Is it beyond belief that come November we might hear, ''Election Night '08! Brought to you by Budweiser — please vote responsibly''? Probably it is. But if American Political Idol continues to grow in popularity, it might be only a matter of time. Think of the possibilities! Slo-mo replays of the latest candidate meltdown, brought to you by Chevrolet!

I don't like this. Maybe I'm an old fogy, but turning the election process into a game show makes me depressed about the present and nervous about the future. One possibly good sign: Hip TV watchers have grown increasingly foxy about the polling process. The age of innocence is over; voters once willing to come clean and say they voted for Mike Huckabee because Nugent's ''Cat Scratch Fever'' loincloth is still the high point of their rock lives are harder and harder to find.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20175322_2,00.html

comment #48

Rich S. says ...

Sorry to say, christian, but it's the future and it's here to stay. From JFK in the debates, to Willy Horton, to Bill Clinton on his sax on Arsenio. Politics is still learning its way in the new media, but we're never going back.

If, to paraphrase Tyler Durden, Madison Avenue can get you to slave away your whole life in a job you can't stand, just to buy shit you don't need, then it can certainly get you to vote for whomever has the best media strategy.

comment #49

christian says ...

It don't mean I have to like it nor try to keep minds aware of the manipulation. I'm a fighter.

comment #50

le corbeau says ...

Mgmax, if you think the poor, the middle class and the economy aren't in a bad way, then I don't know what. You've been denying it even as your boy Bush finally admits it.

Show me an economic measure by which "the poor, the middle class and the economy" are all in a bad way. Just one. I've consistently shown three ways in which things are really pretty decent right now. Just one, backed up by a link to a reputable source.

I'll be waiting for that like I'm still waiting for people to acknowledge I was right about the Lancet study's bogus million deaths in Iraq....

AJW, I left GDP out because it doesn't tell me anything about how individuals are doing. Being employed does. Owning a house does. Double-digit inflation not eating my savings does. You can do all the special pleading you want (I, for one, am not surprised that median incomes are down a little after a military blow against a country that ended an economic boom) but in the end you're just doing the same shortsighted thing DZ did when it comes down to it-- November was the high, December fell back to October's levels-- therefore THE SKY IS FAAAAAAAAALLLLLLING!

comment #51

le corbeau says ...

By the way, just got back from voting for Obama. I point this out just to fuck with everybody's stereotypes. (Well, you pretty much have to vote in the Democratic primary if you want to vote in the races that really matter, like Jay Paul Deratany kicking Joe Berrios out.)

comment #52

christian says ...

"I'll be waiting for that like I'm still waiting for people to acknowledge I was right about the Lancet study's bogus million deaths in Iraq...."

Because you weren't:

According to John Zogby of Zogby International, one of the world’s most respected polling services, “The sampling [in the Lancet survey] is solid, the methodology is as good as it gets.” Ronald Waldman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, said the method was “tried and true,” and British Defense Ministry science advisor, Sir Roy Anderson, said the survey was “close to the best practice.”

Indeed, the Bush administration used exactly the same methodology to determine the number of deaths in Darfur, figures that were used to convince the U.S. Congress to label the current crisis in the Sudan “genocide.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/18/4666/

Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. A nationally representative sample of 1,499 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance

On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.

Mgmax, you were also wrong that Team Bush didn't lie to get us into the Iraq War. Today is the anniversary of Colin Powell going before the UN to spread a blanket of lies that he admitted to regretting later. And you still believe him, so your truth methodology is forever suspect.

comment #53

gansibele says ...

Here's another moving, not so concise, but equally emotional appeal for Hilalry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/hillary-clinton-for-presi_b_85074.html

Emotions only take us so far. Would that we could follow a comptetent leader that leaves us cold otherwise.

comment #54

le corbeau says ...

And the WHO, which surveyed five times as many households in a survey which covered much more of the country, said it was bullshit by a factor of four:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2238250,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-01-09-iraqi-death-toll_N.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17993630

Looking forward to your one economic statistic to back your claim that was supposed to be obvious to all.

comment #55

AJW says ...

"Show me an economic measure by which 'the poor, the middle class and the economy' are all in a bad way."

Since 1980 the real income upper-limit for the bottom fifth of American households has increased 15%. For the 2nd fifth it's up 15.6%. For the middle fifth it's up 19.8%. The 61-80th quintile maximum is up 32.3%. The minimum needed to be in the top 5% has increased 47.4%(!). So that's good, if noticeably unequal and over a period nearly 30 years in length. However, those last two categories have each seen gains since 2000. The other three have deteriorated. That is not good for lower- and middle-income households, even if they have jobs.

December-to-December inflation was the highest it's been since 1988-1990. And the Fed is cutting rates. And the dollar is falling.

No, the sky isn't falling. It just isn't such a rosy picture.

comment #56

christian says ...

Those making the case that America's economic free fall will not reach well into 2008 will find the going more difficult after a number of unexpectedly weak economic signals released yesterday sent shock waves through the markets.

Matters were not helped by the Federal Reserve chairman's congressional testimony. Ben Bernanke's message to Congress was dire: The economy needs all the help it can get.

Mr. Bernanke, whose job it is to temper America's economic cycles through monetary policy, admitted to the House Budget Committee that the Fed alone may not be able to avert a serious economic downturn. He said a prompt and "explicitly temporary" fiscal stimulus package from Congress could supplement the Fed's own efforts to prevent recession.

Among the poor economic news, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank reported that manufacturing activity in the Philadelphia region slowed to a six-year low in January, and the U.S. Census Bureau said December's overall housing starts were the fewest in 17 years. The numbers startled traders, who sent stocks and the dollar sharply down. The Dow Jones Industrial average plummeted 306.95 points, or 2.5%, to 12,159.21, its biggest fall in two months. The dollar fell to a 2 1/2-year low against the yen.

The chief economist at High Frequency Economics, Ian Shepherdson, called the reports "really grim," noting that the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank's general economic index plunged to levels seen only during recessions.

"This is very alarming, because we had pinned our hopes on the relative strength of the corporate sector offsetting some of the housing hit. This is bad," he said.

"Both key reports pointed towards profound weakness for the economy for the first part of this year," the chief economist at Nomura Securities, David Resler, said. "I think the markets are still coming to grips with the implications of a very weak economy."

http://www.nysun.com/article/69740

comment #57

le corbeau says ...

Wait, a 15% increase isn't good for lower and middle income households?

It's good, it's just not AS good. An actual decline would be actually bad.

Likewise, rising inflation is certainly a worry... but still. Even if 4.3% is higher than most of the period since 1992, it's low compared to, say, Bush I's term (when it reached 6ish) and is substantially lower than the entire period from March '73 to November '81, when it approached 15%. Which isn't ancient history to a lot of us who remember it perfectly well. (Oh, and I note how carefully you chose the December to December jump, since 8 out of 12 months would have shown a same-month decline between 2006 and 2008.)

Now I think we're saying the same things, in terms of data, just interpreting differently. Even with real concerns about the economy right now, the idea that everyone's hurting and suffering and on the edge of doom is hardly supported by the reality.

comment #58

le corbeau says ...

Oops, same-month decline between 2006 and 2007.

comment #59

le corbeau says ...

"Would that we could follow a comptetent leader that leaves us cold otherwise."

Before you become convinced that Hillary is the competent leader, read Brad DeLong (in 2003) on his experiences in the Clinton treasury dept.:

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html

comment #60

christian says ...

Do you know anybody Mgmax? Many of my friends are hurting. I've seen the downsizing and lay-offs up close. Companies are laying people off in the thosands. Here's one example:

"The IBM project I am writing about is called LEAN and the first manifestation of LEAN was this week's 1,300 layoffs at Global Services, which generated almost no press. Thirteen hundred layoffs from a company with more than 350,000 workers is nothing, so the yawning press reaction is not unexpected. But this week's "job action," as they refer to it inside IBM management, was as much as anything a rehearsal for what I understand are another 100,000+ layoffs to follow, each dribbled out until some reporter (that would be me) notices the growing trend, then dumped en masse when the jig is up, but no later than the end of this year."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_002027.html

And if the economy was so robust, then Bush and the GOP would be in the catbird seat, instead of the cat shit. Nobody's looking to your party to solve America's economic woes.

comment #61

AJW says ...

"Wait, a 15% increase isn't good for lower and middle income households?"

I said it's good, but unequal. The 15% is from 1980-2006 (last available data).

"An actual decline would be actually bad."

Which is what happened from 2000-2006. Exactly. Now you're catching on.

"(Oh, and I note how carefully you chose the December to December jump, since 8 out of 12 months would have shown a same-month decline between 2006 and 2008.)"

What do you want me to do? December-to-December is right there in the report and generally how economists quote annual data.

comment #62

le corbeau says ...

Just one standard economic metric, Christian. Not anecdotal evidence, one standard economic metric.

As for you, AJW, apparently you're not catching on. No one denies that there's this or that problem in the economy. We could very well face a slump of some years now. That's not the question. The question is, is there any validity to statements like these:

"the poor, the middle class and the economy [are] in a bad way"

Relative to what? This time last year, maybe they're a little worse off. Ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago? Absolutely not.

"the greatest job loss since the Depression"

Proven false above.

"GDP can be soaring and the majority of people's lives can still be unaffected or worse."

Proven false... by yourself.

"We've left a mess for our kids: they'll never be able to own a home, they'll never have job security and they'll never be able to retire."

Hysteria flying in the face of clear facts.

The fact is, all this economic whining flies in the face of clear facts about general prosperity and an economy which has grown consistently-- if not constantly, every single month, which is an absurd standard for measurement.

comment #63

AJW says ...

"'GDP can be soaring and the majority of people's lives can still be unaffected or worse.'

Proven false... by yourself."

I'll let you have the last word after this if you so desire.

My understanding is that real GDP growth has been consistently strong during the Bush Years, outside the early short recession and last quarter (and possibly some other isolated periods). However. During this time of growth in overall economic activity the real incomes required to be at the upper-end of the lowest three quintiles of households has fallen. So, to my thinking, that helps demonstrate that a robustly accelerating GDP does not necessarily mean prosperity for the majority of people. Perhaps I'm mistaken in the growth in GDP during the past 7 or so years, but the majority of American households are no better off in terms of real income, with the main drops happening after the NBER-defined recession. (Source: Census website)

comment #64

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I, who lived through the double-digit inflation and unemployment of the 70s, point out that in fact by lots of measures lots of things are near the best they've ever been--"

That's probably because you haven't lost your job, your house, or your health care yet.

"Now you're trying to get around that with a flurry of statistics, but really, it's this simple. Inflation is pretty low."

Except for food and heating, but hey, we can't all be in touch with reality.

"Unemployment is near its lowest point in the last quarter-century."

But it's not stable employment.

"Home ownership is at its highest ever."

Give it a few months.

"And yes, the stock market is still relatively close to a high even after recent drops,"

Emphasis on relatively close.

"You just said, if the unemployment rate was 5.0% before, and a bunch of people got thrown out of work and it rose to 6.3%, and now it's back to 4.9% (those are all accurate figures by the way), that it hasn't "compensated" for the rise to 6.3% yet. That's exactly what it HAS done."

No it hasn't, since the people who got hired are likely outsourced or in short-term jobs.

"you'd see that the post-9/11 rise from 5% to 6.3% at its worst is substantially smaller than the jump in 1974-1975 (from around 5% to 9%) or 1980-1 (from around 7.5% to almost 11%"

The jobs which were lost in the 70s and early 80s weren't the top-paying ones.

"I look forward to increased government interference in the housing market making it more efficient and open to all."

That's what we did after WW2, and that led to one of the biggest economic books of the century.

"Show me an economic measure by which "the poor, the middle class and the economy" are all in a bad way."

The service sector being down mean anything to you? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_services

JHR: "Realtors don't set the market value of homes."

Except when work with banks to hook people into debt. But that never happens...

"Holy shit, man, he was the most incompetent president of the last 100 years,"

Did he destroy New Orleans or ignore a terrorist warning on NYC? Did his brother give licenses to the terrorists?

comment #65

le corbeau says ...

OH GOD WE'RE ALL DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED

I'm in a blissful mood now, thinking of Frank Borzage films in 35mm. So I'll leave it there. Good night.

comment #66

D.Z. says ...

Wall Street plunged Tuesday, driving the Dow Jones industrials down 370 points after investors saw an unexpected contraction in the service sector as evidence the economy is sinking into recession. It was the Dow's biggest percentage drop in almost a year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

comment #67

christian says ...

You say that like it's a bad thing DZ.

It just means the economy is booming, and people love the great job the GOP has been doing.

Defecit? Doesn't mean a thing. Surplus? Who needs 'em. Billions a month spent in Iraq? Who cares? Tax cuts in a time of war? Love 'em.

comment #68

The Hoyk says ...

OH GOD WE'RE ALL DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED

"What did he say?

DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED!

"Camptown ladies sing this song, doo dah, doo dah!

Nothing like a little Bullwinkle gag to break the tension.

comment #69

JHRussell says ...

DZ, I get it now. Everyone to whom something "bad" happens is a victim of the man...take on a mortgage you can't afford: blame the man...a hurricane hits your city and your house is flooded: blame the man...

Man, you are really stupid.

comment #70

D.Z. says ...

JHR: "Everyone to whom something "bad" happens is a victim of the man...take on a mortgage you can't afford: blame the man..."

Being harassed into paying and being lied to about your ability to pay a mortgage is the fault of the man.

"a hurricane hits your city and your house is flooded: blame the man..."

It's the man's fault if they screw you out of the insurance and emergency services they owe you.