<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Donkey vulnerabilities: Dukakis Redux?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities-dukakis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities-dukakis/</link>
	<description>Life during wartime</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:51:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stockholm Tom</title>
		<link>http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities-dukakis/comment-page-1/#comment-3833</link>
		<dc:creator>Stockholm Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities/#comment-3833</guid>
		<description>That vile rumor, no doubt, was also hatched by the Clintons! I only slept at Gough&#039;s on weekends!

My first comment, written in a mad rush, indeed contained a number of expository defects (starting with Bill Clinton&#039;s &quot;estranged relation to the truth&quot;). But I stand by my accusations!

I do not at all believe that Clinton would do better than Obama in the fall. Hopefully we&#039;ll get a chance to see how he would handle that stage. 

Beat,

Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That vile rumor, no doubt, was also hatched by the Clintons! I only slept at Gough&#8217;s on weekends!</p>
<p>My first comment, written in a mad rush, indeed contained a number of expository defects (starting with Bill Clinton&#8217;s &#8220;estranged relation to the truth&#8221;). But I stand by my accusations!</p>
<p>I do not at all believe that Clinton would do better than Obama in the fall. Hopefully we&#8217;ll get a chance to see how he would handle that stage. </p>
<p>Beat,</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed</title>
		<link>http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities-dukakis/comment-page-1/#comment-3832</link>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities/#comment-3832</guid>
		<description>Hi Tom,

Rumor always had it that you lived at Gough&#039;s  ...

I envy your escape to a better society.

I doubt three of the things you&#039;re certain about above. For one:

Hillary was always on the chart to win Ohio and Texas.  An Obama strategy memo from summer 2007 was read aloud  on MSNBC last night as the returns rolled in, and picked these races (and most of the others so far) with  accuracy. I think she won on issues/spirit/class concerns, not chicanery.

I&#039;m neither a Hillary lover nor a hater. Just want the GOP out of the White House for a while. Happy to have Hillary, happier to have Barack. But I think he&#039;s more vulnerable.

McCain is going to be a Hedgehog in the fall, pummelling the Dems with body blows on so-called National Security. Barack the aloof Fox will not be able to evade them. Perhaps he&#039;ll endure them; that would be my hope.

And if we&#039;re newly at war in the near east or Pakghanistan, Barack&#039;s chances plummet but Hillary&#039;s hold their own.

Then again (as said), the New American Dustbowl may trump all, and deliver Barack despite his weaknesses.  Another hope.

(Not that I&#039;m presuming your comments about the Clintons are motivated by passion for Barack.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tom,</p>
<p>Rumor always had it that you lived at Gough&#8217;s  &#8230;</p>
<p>I envy your escape to a better society.</p>
<p>I doubt three of the things you&#8217;re certain about above. For one:</p>
<p>Hillary was always on the chart to win Ohio and Texas.  An Obama strategy memo from summer 2007 was read aloud  on MSNBC last night as the returns rolled in, and picked these races (and most of the others so far) with  accuracy. I think she won on issues/spirit/class concerns, not chicanery.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m neither a Hillary lover nor a hater. Just want the GOP out of the White House for a while. Happy to have Hillary, happier to have Barack. But I think he&#8217;s more vulnerable.</p>
<p>McCain is going to be a Hedgehog in the fall, pummelling the Dems with body blows on so-called National Security. Barack the aloof Fox will not be able to evade them. Perhaps he&#8217;ll endure them; that would be my hope.</p>
<p>And if we&#8217;re newly at war in the near east or Pakghanistan, Barack&#8217;s chances plummet but Hillary&#8217;s hold their own.</p>
<p>Then again (as said), the New American Dustbowl may trump all, and deliver Barack despite his weaknesses.  Another hope.</p>
<p>(Not that I&#8217;m presuming your comments about the Clintons are motivated by passion for Barack.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stockholm Tom</title>
		<link>http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities-dukakis/comment-page-1/#comment-3831</link>
		<dc:creator>Stockholm Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:28:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2008/03/04/donkey-vulnerabilities/#comment-3831</guid>
		<description>Letâ€™s review the havoc wreaked by the House of Clinton:

The former President Clinton had such an estranged relation with the truth that the republicans could have run a chimpanzee in 2000 and won. Instead, they ran someone even less qualified and won anyway. Hence the first Bush term.

(I know Iâ€™m not alone in blaming the Clintons for the first Bush term, though most American liberals are ashamed to talk about it. On to the second.)

Remember late August/early September 2004? That electricity in the air as one began to understand, despite the embarrassing spectacle that the Democratic National Convention had been, that momentum was shifting decidedly in favor of John Kerry? Because, you know, the country did understand that Iraq was a colossal failure. That Bush and his clan were seriously fucked up. Bruce Springsteen was running around giving free concerts. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the movie event of the year. Etc., etc. What happened?

Iâ€™ll tell you what happened. To his great discredit, John Kerry got nervous and did the one thing that could sink his bid â€“ he sought the help of the fucking Clintons, who gave him the mendacious advice that he should introduce gay marriage as one of the pillars of his platform. Say what you want about gay marriage, in the heartland itâ€™s regarded as on a par with cannibalism, if not, indeed, worse. The result: Bush won a second term and Hillary got her shot in 2008.

(Yes, I really do believe this. I saw it all coming at the time. All you had to do was read between the lines. Enter 2008)

Does anyone doubt that Hillary was behind the release of the information that Obama had made assurances to the Canadians that conflicted with his stump position on NAFTA? Needless to say, the allegations, in their proper context, are spurious. Obamaâ€™s position on NAFTA is not essentially different from Clintonâ€™s or, for that matter, from what is obviously the current received position within the Democratic Party. Thereâ€™s really no conflict between saying on the trail that the treaty is flawed and needs to be renegotiated and telling our neighbors to the north not to worry, that something will be hammered out that suits both sides, more or less. But such subtleties are lost on American voters, and Hillary, with the sense of destructive timing that only seriously psychopathic characters can possess, tossed out a piece of misleading news at just the right moment to break Obamaâ€™s impressive streak of 11 straight primaries.

There was a bumper sticker on the mirror behind the bar at Goughâ€™s, the once venerable, now defunct Times Square drinking establishment, that read:

OLD AGE AND TREACHERY WILL OVERCOME YOUTH AND SKILL!

Iâ€™m so glad I donâ€™t live there anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Letâ€™s review the havoc wreaked by the House of Clinton:</p>
<p>The former President Clinton had such an estranged relation with the truth that the republicans could have run a chimpanzee in 2000 and won. Instead, they ran someone even less qualified and won anyway. Hence the first Bush term.</p>
<p>(I know Iâ€™m not alone in blaming the Clintons for the first Bush term, though most American liberals are ashamed to talk about it. On to the second.)</p>
<p>Remember late August/early September 2004? That electricity in the air as one began to understand, despite the embarrassing spectacle that the Democratic National Convention had been, that momentum was shifting decidedly in favor of John Kerry? Because, you know, the country did understand that Iraq was a colossal failure. That Bush and his clan were seriously fucked up. Bruce Springsteen was running around giving free concerts. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the movie event of the year. Etc., etc. What happened?</p>
<p>Iâ€™ll tell you what happened. To his great discredit, John Kerry got nervous and did the one thing that could sink his bid â€“ he sought the help of the fucking Clintons, who gave him the mendacious advice that he should introduce gay marriage as one of the pillars of his platform. Say what you want about gay marriage, in the heartland itâ€™s regarded as on a par with cannibalism, if not, indeed, worse. The result: Bush won a second term and Hillary got her shot in 2008.</p>
<p>(Yes, I really do believe this. I saw it all coming at the time. All you had to do was read between the lines. Enter 2008)</p>
<p>Does anyone doubt that Hillary was behind the release of the information that Obama had made assurances to the Canadians that conflicted with his stump position on NAFTA? Needless to say, the allegations, in their proper context, are spurious. Obamaâ€™s position on NAFTA is not essentially different from Clintonâ€™s or, for that matter, from what is obviously the current received position within the Democratic Party. Thereâ€™s really no conflict between saying on the trail that the treaty is flawed and needs to be renegotiated and telling our neighbors to the north not to worry, that something will be hammered out that suits both sides, more or less. But such subtleties are lost on American voters, and Hillary, with the sense of destructive timing that only seriously psychopathic characters can possess, tossed out a piece of misleading news at just the right moment to break Obamaâ€™s impressive streak of 11 straight primaries.</p>
<p>There was a bumper sticker on the mirror behind the bar at Goughâ€™s, the once venerable, now defunct Times Square drinking establishment, that read:</p>
<p>OLD AGE AND TREACHERY WILL OVERCOME YOUTH AND SKILL!</p>
<p>Iâ€™m so glad I donâ€™t live there anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

