For once the WSJ gets it right, it is time for Senator Clinton to bow her lying ass out and let the country move forward into the 21st Century.

Wow--division and disunity?

Is there a schism between them that is causing the rift? Is there something that could bring them back together, causing them to reunite?

awfulperson: Wow--division and disunity?

Is there a schism between them that is causing the rift? Is there something that could bring them back together, causing them to reunite?

I like and enjoy the way you repeat your redundancies.

What, no Romero tag?

Let's see... I had to register as a Dem to vote for Obama. I am your a-typical Clinton hater I guess you could say... however, would I sell my soul to vote for a Republican? HELL NO. I will not vote Republican this cycle as they are pro-corporation and pro-war and only care about mega rich fat cats. I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nod either way. So, this Dem will not be splitting from the party regardless of who gets the nomination.

Didn't Rupert Murdoch buy the WSJ? Hrrmmm.... it's already starting to turn.

Go Obama!

The WSJ is more or less a GOP mouthpiece. I would take any political commentary that they post with a grain of salt, or perhaps an entire salt shaker, or in case of emergency a giant Nigerian salt mine.

These are the guys that not only loudly supported the Iraq war, but have constantly defended Scooter Libby, denied that global warming exists and are owned by evil incarnate (and my wife's employer) Rupert Murdoch.

Note, I speak only of the editorial page, but from that perspective it's hard to take any political commentary they issue as serious since they certainly do have an agenda.

Ah, more Republican projection onto the Democrats. So because the Republicans are splintering between the poor, the rich, and the religious means everybody is and this is a symptom of the government being BAD?

Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhtttttt.

TwistedFark: The WSJ is more or less a GOP mouthpiece. I would take any political commentary that they post with a grain of salt, or perhaps an entire salt shaker, or in case of emergency a giant Nigerian salt mine.

but not a attractive and successful African-American-ian salt mine?

/yay filter fun

TwistedFark: The WSJ is more or less a GOP mouthpiece. I would take any political commentary that they post with a grain of salt, or perhaps an entire salt shaker, or in case of emergency a giant Nigerian salt mine.

These are the guys that not only loudly supported the Iraq war, but have constantly defended Scooter Libby, denied that global warming exists and are owned by evil incarnate (and my wife's employer) Rupert Murdoch.

Note, I speak only of the editorial page, but from that perspective it's hard to take any political commentary they issue as serious since they certainly do have an agenda.

This. This isn't Murdoch's fault, either; it was like this long before he got there.

The editorial page of the WSJ has been Wingnut Central for years. It's funny becuase the overall journalistic level of the paper -- and not just in financial news -- has been really high. Or, at least, until ol' Rupert moved in. The thing that Murdoch does that really farks things up wherever he goes isn't so much imposing his political views as it is just being a cheap fark who doesn't see why you need so many reporters out there.

Oh yes because "Liberal" John McCain has the conservative Republicans right in his pocket where he wants them. He doesn't even have his own base. McCain is the new Bob Dole.

Some wishful think from the urinal here. Note how the article avoids the issues and focuses on personalities.

I dont know who I'm going to vote against come November.

MixDJ:
I will not vote Republican this cycle as they are pro-corporation and pro-war and only care about mega rich fat cats.

I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nod either way.

You're doing it wrong.

awfulperson: Wow--division and disunity?

Is there a schism between them that is causing the rift? Is there something that could bring them back together, causing them to reunite?

There's only one way the Democratic party can heal the rift:

Hillary and Barack should have some make-up sex, pronto

/Just wanted to put that image in your head.

Didn't Rupert Murdoch buy the WSJ? Hrrmmm.... it's already starting to turn.

Murdoch hosts fundraiser for Hillary Clinton:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/murdoch-inc-digging-deep-for-hillary/2007/11 /30/1196394621263.html

Dec. 07'According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organisation in Washington that researches the donor lists, News Corporation is now Senator Clinton's 20th largest supporter, having contributed more than $US93,000 to her presidential campaign so far.

EwoksSuck: McCain is the new Bob Dole.

I gotta say Bob Dole sounds *real good* right about now. But, yeah, he'd probably have a hard time getting elected, even today. Not mean enough, in part. McCain has matured to be reasonably decent, as far as I can tell, after getting burned on the Keating Five thing. Could be that more will come out, though. But, I really don't think he's anywhere *near* as sharp as Dole was. Maybe that doesn't matter that much.

/ Obama fan, in case anyone hadn't gotten it by now.

Democrats: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is Job 1.

The fact is us Dems voting for the candidate we like best, while the Repugs are trying to vote for the candidate they least hate .

We win.

I don't see what's so bad about being passionate about our candidates instead of plodding along like we did with Kerry because we were mostly trying to vote him in as an opposition to Bush.

heroes_die: The fact is us Dems voting for the candidate we like best, while the Repugs are trying to vote for the candidate they least hate .

We win.

I don't see what's so bad about being passionate about our candidates instead of plodding along like we did with Kerry because we were mostly trying to vote him in as an opposition to Bush.

Actually, it's more accurate to say that the Republicans are voting for the person that'll keep their shiat together and finding that calling everybody that disagrees a 'liberal' is a surefire way to make you a minority within your own party. Roosters coming home to roost and such.

Division, disunity, the potential end of an era -- these were the watchwords for the GOP in 2008. The election was supposed to break the Republican Party, maybe even bring an end to the Reagan coalition

Couple of clues to the new and not so improved WSJ:

First, the Reagan coalition is deader than that crappy B-actor himself. No more Reagan Dems, now the Dem party is looking forward to attracting Obama Republicans.

Second, the goose-step right is always the party of unity. The corporate clowns, the neo-crusaders and the religious reichwingnutZ may whine and biatch at each other but they will all line up like the brain dead sheeple they are and vote for whoever their prophets of the airwaves tell them to at the convention.

Third, the divisions on the left are generally the result of specific policy and strategy differences and this is largely due to the fact that people on the left tend to think for themselves much more so than those on the right. It's messier that way but it's a much better way to go about it. More Democratic.

/Page 3 girls are coming to get ya!

From TFA:

Mitt Romney's withdrawal yesterday instead ends a spirited GOP debate. John McCain faces a big challenge unifying and rallying his base, but his Super Tuesday wins show he's making some progress. Mr. Romney's gracious withdrawal, and the senator's faultless address yesterday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, should help. It's also notable that Mr. McCain's support, such as it is, is coming from all three legs of that old Reagan stool -- defense hawks, fiscal conservatives and values voters.

Uhhh...BULLSHIAT? McCain is being torn apart by GOP bobbleheads on Conservative radio and TV. Fox News apparently likes to label him as a Democratic from Arizona. Romney tried to say voting for Obama or Clinton was like supporting terrorism during his withdrawal speech. The GOP doesn't even want to pretend Paul exists and Huckabee is getting lost in the shuffle. The GOP is coming apart in several directions, not just two.

Wow that was pure, unadulterated, by-the-skin-of-the-teeth, lying spin at its worst. A complete denial of reality and the most partisan crap I've read this week.

fark Kimberley Strassel.

Democrat from Arizona. My mistake.

quatchi: The corporate clowns, the neo-crusaders and the religious reichwingnutZ may whine and biatch at each other but they will all line up like the brain dead sheeple they are and vote for whoever their prophets of the airwaves tell them to at the convention.

When you say "prophets of the airwaves", are you talking about Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. who endorsed Romney?

I think this is only partly true. The republicans were quicker to pick which candidate they hated the least, while the democrats are taking longer to decide which is their absolute favorite.

quatchi
Third, the divisions on the left are generally the result of specific policy and strategy differences and this is largely due to the fact that people on the left tend to think for themselves much more so than those on the right. It's messier that way but it's a much better way to go about it. More Democratic.

Wow, that's a whole heap of idiocy for one post, you gotta learn to pace yourself.

Welcome to the way politics works in this country. Both parties are collections of interest groups. (Or "alliances" in the Biercian sense - the union of two or more thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted into each other's pockets they cannot separately plunder a victim.)

The difference between them is how they are internally divided. Republicans tend to divide themselves into subgroups on the basis of what they believe (national security hawks vs. America-firsters, social conservatives vs. libertarians, free-marketeers vs. business types etc. etc.) - some compromises are inevitable. Conflicts are apparently settled on the basis of "I'll give you this turf if you promise not to muscle in on mine." Which is how you got the utter incoherence of a party of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives going along with compassionate conservative spending. Everybody gets something they like, but they're all stuck with something they hate. The losing sides are always bought off with government programs. And everyone walks away butthurt but muttering "could have been worse."

Democrats tend to divide themselves into subgroups on the basis of what they are or do for a living (working-class, members of trade and professional unions, the "noblesse oblige" rich, racial minorities, women, gays, young hipsters, pensioners, activists for various causes, etc. etc.) - the organizing principle of the party seems to be "support everyone else's agenda and we'll support yours." Conflicts are apparently settled on the basis of whoever's asking for a change of the status quo wins, except when it's a government program, in which case, it will be made bigger. The losing sides are always bought off with government programs. And everyone walks away happy but with this vague feeling that they've been screwed over somehow.