Jim Cramer "The Bottom Line" (New York Magazine) March 21, 2008 * * 1/2
And believe me, the only character who ever played more hardball with the government than the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, was Michael Corleone when he negotiated his casino deal with Senator Geary in Godfather II. Like Michael, Dimon basically told Treasury and the Fed, “My offer is this: nothing.” The Feds countered with $2; Jamie Dimon said, Throw in $30 billion in loan guarantees against Bear’s bad mortgage portfolio—the Corleone equivalent of Geary’s putting up the fee personally for the casino’s gaming license!—and you get your deal done in time to save the free world’s financial system. The government, which had been hoping to get $20 for Bear, a $10 haircut from Friday’s close, had no choice, and Dimon got his casino, with a billion-dollar headquarters thrown in.
Sean McManus "If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?" (New York Magazine) April 21, 2008 * * *
Now, once again, nonbelievers have a fresh sense of mission. The fastest-growing faith in the country is no faith at all. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of its “Religious Landscape” survey in February and found that 16 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation. The number is even greater among young people: 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now identify with no religion, up from 11 percent in a similar survey in 1986. For most of its modern history, atheism has existed as a kind of civil-rights movement. Groups like American Atheists have functioned primarily as litigants in the fight for church-state separation, not as atheist social clubs. “Atheists are self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent people who don’t feel like they need an organization,” says Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists for the past thirteen years. “They’re so independent that if they want to get involved, they usually don’t join an organization—they start their own.”
William Safire "In The Tank" (New York Times) April 20, 2008 * * * *
A tank was the 19th-century term for what we now call a swimming pool; the metaphor evoked a picture of diving to the ring’s canvas-covered floor — as if into a pool — to feign loss of consciousness. “By extension,” Dickson reports, “when a fighter or anything else (including a stock) takes a nose dive he or she has tanked.”
That’s what the Time columnist Joe Klein meant when he told CNN that Hillary Clinton “is not going to be able to put together the math to win this nomination unless Obama tanks completely.” It’s also where we get “the economy is tanking,” as the Henny Pennys of the dismal science like to say, though such alarmists do not impute a crooked intent to any hard landing.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Why didn't SHE put HIM away?
Hillary Clinton has gone on and on about how she is just one hell of a fighter and if Obama is so great- why can't he put her away? Its an enticing argument; one I have found myself engaging in, against myself, in my own head, the last couple of days. An interesting article I just read, by Mike Lupica* asks the alternative question:
Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.
If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.
This is an intersting point that I also saw made on Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday. Obama was NEVER expected to be here at this point. The system was designed to be against him. Hillary raised so much money at the beginning of this race and thought that it would be a march to the coronation. "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . "
* I hate Mike Lupica. He is most well-known as a sports writer and is a frequent annoying guest on ESPN's Sunday morning gab-fest "The Sports Reporters." I hate him, hate him, hate him . . . and he annoys me tremendously, but kudos to him for making this excellent point.
Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.
If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.
This is an intersting point that I also saw made on Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday. Obama was NEVER expected to be here at this point. The system was designed to be against him. Hillary raised so much money at the beginning of this race and thought that it would be a march to the coronation. "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . "
* I hate Mike Lupica. He is most well-known as a sports writer and is a frequent annoying guest on ESPN's Sunday morning gab-fest "The Sports Reporters." I hate him, hate him, hate him . . . and he annoys me tremendously, but kudos to him for making this excellent point.
The A.C.
Yes, I find Ann Coulter more than slightly despicable, but I read her weekly column anyway. Often I find she is quite funny. Here are a couple snippets from this week's column:
On Hillary and her attachment to Bill:
If Hillary could run exclusively on her record since becoming a senator from New York, she'd be a relatively moderate Democrat who hates the loony left -- as we found out this week when a tape of Hillary denouncing Moveon.org surfaced. Think Joe Biden in a pantsuit.
On Clinton's association with Bill's people being worse than Obama's "association" with terrorists:
So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should. On one hand, Obama pals around with terrorists. On the other hand, Hillary pals around with James Carville. Advantage: Obama.
On Hillary and her attachment to Bill:
If Hillary could run exclusively on her record since becoming a senator from New York, she'd be a relatively moderate Democrat who hates the loony left -- as we found out this week when a tape of Hillary denouncing Moveon.org surfaced. Think Joe Biden in a pantsuit.
On Clinton's association with Bill's people being worse than Obama's "association" with terrorists:
So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should. On one hand, Obama pals around with terrorists. On the other hand, Hillary pals around with James Carville. Advantage: Obama.
Look at the stars...look how they shine for you
The other morning I read David Brooks' column in the NYTIMES as I usually do and was struck by the difference in tone from what most people were writing that day, and a difference from what Brooks himself usually writes. His main point being, if I may, that all too often today we try and iron out the mystery of life; the unexplainable. We do so rightly in many instances with science and logic but is it at the cost of the beauty and enjoyment of life?
Later that same day, I read a book review of a new biography of Sir Isaac Newton. The book was reviewed by my favorite writer, Christopher Hitchens and can be found here. What I think is interesting is this intersecting notion that something is missing when science and rationality is divorced from literature, music, art . . . etc. Here is a sample of what he says at the close of the review:
The book I have been discussing is the third volume in Ackroyd’s Brief Lives series. Himself a gay son of Clare College, Cambridge, who has already “done” Chaucer and Turner, as well as longer biographies of Dickens, T. S. Eliot, Blake, and the city of London (at 800-plus pages), he may well be the most prolific English author of his generation. And, which I find encouraging, he can write movingly and revealingly about Isaac Newton while being no more of a scientist or mathematician than I am. In our young day in Cambridge, the most famous public squabble was between the “scientist” C. P. Snow and the “literary” F. R. Leavis. It eventually turned into a multi-volume international tussle about “the two cultures,” or the inability of physicists to understand or appreciate literature versus the refusal of the English department to acquire the smallest “scientific” literacy. Ackroyd helps to show us that this is a false distinction with a long history. Keats, for example, thought that Newton had made our world into an arid and finite and unromantic place, and that work like his could “conquer all mysteries by rule and line … Unweave a rainbow.” He couldn’t have been more wrong. Newton was a friend of all mysticism and a lover of the occult who desired at all costs to keep the secrets of the temple and to prevent the universe from becoming a known quantity. For all that, he did generate a great deal more light than he had intended, and the day is not far off when we will be able to contemplate physics as another department—perhaps the most dynamic department—of the humanities. I would never have believed this when I first despairingly tried to lap the water of Cambridge, but that was before Carl Sagan and Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking fused language and science (and humor) and clambered up to stand, as Newton himself once phrased it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
Here too, is the brief column from David Brooks:
The Great Escape
By David Brooks
Published: April 22, 2008
Elon, N.C.
Over the past 15 months, I’ve been writing pretty regularly about the presidential campaign, which has meant thinking a lot about attack ads, tracking polls and which campaign is renouncing which over-the-line comment from a surrogate that particular day.
But on my desk for much of this period I have kept a short essay, which I stare at longingly from time to time. It’s an essay about how people in the Middle Ages viewed the night sky, and it’s about a mentality so totally removed from the campaign mentality that it’s like a refreshing dip in a cool and cleansing pool.
The essay, which appeared in Books & Culture, is called “C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem,” by Michael Ward, a chaplain at Peterhouse College at Cambridge. It points out that while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God. The medieval universe, Lewis wrote, “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”
Lewis tried to recapture that medieval mind-set, Ward writes. He did it not because he wanted to renounce the Copernican revolution and modern science, but because he found something valuable in that different way of seeing our surroundings.
The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it “all fact and no meaning.” When we say that a star is a huge flaming ball of gas, he wrote, we are merely describing what it is made of. We are not describing what it is. Lewis also wanted to include the mythologies, symbols and stories that have been told about the heavenly actors, and which were so real to those who looked up into the sky hundreds of years ago. He wanted to strengthen the imaginative faculty that comes naturally to those who see the heavens as fundamentally spiritual and alive.
There’s something about obsessing about a campaign — or probably a legal case or a business deal — that doesn’t exactly arouse the imaginative faculties. Campaigns are all about message management, polls and tactics. The communication is swift, Blackberry-sized and prosaic. As you cover it, you feel yourself enclosed in its tunnel. Entire mental faculties go unused. Ward’s essay has been a constant reminder of that other mental universe.
The medievals had a tremendous capacity for imagination and enchantment, and while nobody but the deepest romantic would want to go back to their way of thinking (let alone their way of life), it’s a tonic to visit from time to time.
As many historians have written, Europeans in the Middle Ages lived with an almost childlike emotional intensity. There were stark contrasts between daytime and darkness, between summer heat and winter cold, between misery and exuberance, and good and evil. Certain distinctions were less recognized, namely between the sacred and the profane.
Material things were consecrated with spiritual powers. God was thought to live in the stones of the cathedrals, and miracles inhered in the bones of the saints. The world seemed spiritually alive, and the power of spirit could overshadow politics. As Johan Huizinga wrote in “The Autumn of the Middle Ages,” “The most revealing map of Europe in these centuries would be a map, not of political or commercial capitals, but of the constellation of sanctuaries, the points of material contact with the unseen world.”
We tend to see economics and politics as the source of human motives, and then explain spirituality as their byproduct — as Barack Obama tried artlessly to do in San Francisco the other week. But in the Middle Ages, faith came first. The symbols, processions and services were vividly alive.
Large parts of medieval life were attempts to play out a dream, in ways hard to square with the often grubby and smelly reality. There were the elaborate manners of the courtly, the highly stylized love affairs and the formal chivalric code of knighthood. There was this driving impulsion among the well-born to idealize. This idealizing urge produced tournaments, quests and the mystical symbols of medieval art — think of the tapestries of the pure white unicorn. The gap between the ideal and the real is also what Cervantes made fun of in “Don Quixote.”
Writers like C. S. Lewis and John Ruskin seized on medieval culture as an antidote to industrialism — to mass manufacturing, secularization and urbanization. Without turning into an Arthurian cultist, it’s nice to look up from the latest YouTube campaign moment and imagine a sky populated with creatures, symbols and tales.
Not to go on too long, but I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. I know for me, a literature major in undergrad and a lawyer, I love the contrast between raw rationality and its often times harshness and the beauty and enriching quality of art of all forms. I think that the two need to be in combination for a fully enriched life. One in exclusion of the other, leads to a vapid and fundamental misunderstanding or misapprehension of life . . . in my opinion.
Later that same day, I read a book review of a new biography of Sir Isaac Newton. The book was reviewed by my favorite writer, Christopher Hitchens and can be found here. What I think is interesting is this intersecting notion that something is missing when science and rationality is divorced from literature, music, art . . . etc. Here is a sample of what he says at the close of the review:
The book I have been discussing is the third volume in Ackroyd’s Brief Lives series. Himself a gay son of Clare College, Cambridge, who has already “done” Chaucer and Turner, as well as longer biographies of Dickens, T. S. Eliot, Blake, and the city of London (at 800-plus pages), he may well be the most prolific English author of his generation. And, which I find encouraging, he can write movingly and revealingly about Isaac Newton while being no more of a scientist or mathematician than I am. In our young day in Cambridge, the most famous public squabble was between the “scientist” C. P. Snow and the “literary” F. R. Leavis. It eventually turned into a multi-volume international tussle about “the two cultures,” or the inability of physicists to understand or appreciate literature versus the refusal of the English department to acquire the smallest “scientific” literacy. Ackroyd helps to show us that this is a false distinction with a long history. Keats, for example, thought that Newton had made our world into an arid and finite and unromantic place, and that work like his could “conquer all mysteries by rule and line … Unweave a rainbow.” He couldn’t have been more wrong. Newton was a friend of all mysticism and a lover of the occult who desired at all costs to keep the secrets of the temple and to prevent the universe from becoming a known quantity. For all that, he did generate a great deal more light than he had intended, and the day is not far off when we will be able to contemplate physics as another department—perhaps the most dynamic department—of the humanities. I would never have believed this when I first despairingly tried to lap the water of Cambridge, but that was before Carl Sagan and Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking fused language and science (and humor) and clambered up to stand, as Newton himself once phrased it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
Here too, is the brief column from David Brooks:
The Great Escape
By David Brooks
Published: April 22, 2008
Elon, N.C.
Over the past 15 months, I’ve been writing pretty regularly about the presidential campaign, which has meant thinking a lot about attack ads, tracking polls and which campaign is renouncing which over-the-line comment from a surrogate that particular day.
But on my desk for much of this period I have kept a short essay, which I stare at longingly from time to time. It’s an essay about how people in the Middle Ages viewed the night sky, and it’s about a mentality so totally removed from the campaign mentality that it’s like a refreshing dip in a cool and cleansing pool.
The essay, which appeared in Books & Culture, is called “C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem,” by Michael Ward, a chaplain at Peterhouse College at Cambridge. It points out that while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God. The medieval universe, Lewis wrote, “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”
Lewis tried to recapture that medieval mind-set, Ward writes. He did it not because he wanted to renounce the Copernican revolution and modern science, but because he found something valuable in that different way of seeing our surroundings.
The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it “all fact and no meaning.” When we say that a star is a huge flaming ball of gas, he wrote, we are merely describing what it is made of. We are not describing what it is. Lewis also wanted to include the mythologies, symbols and stories that have been told about the heavenly actors, and which were so real to those who looked up into the sky hundreds of years ago. He wanted to strengthen the imaginative faculty that comes naturally to those who see the heavens as fundamentally spiritual and alive.
There’s something about obsessing about a campaign — or probably a legal case or a business deal — that doesn’t exactly arouse the imaginative faculties. Campaigns are all about message management, polls and tactics. The communication is swift, Blackberry-sized and prosaic. As you cover it, you feel yourself enclosed in its tunnel. Entire mental faculties go unused. Ward’s essay has been a constant reminder of that other mental universe.
The medievals had a tremendous capacity for imagination and enchantment, and while nobody but the deepest romantic would want to go back to their way of thinking (let alone their way of life), it’s a tonic to visit from time to time.
As many historians have written, Europeans in the Middle Ages lived with an almost childlike emotional intensity. There were stark contrasts between daytime and darkness, between summer heat and winter cold, between misery and exuberance, and good and evil. Certain distinctions were less recognized, namely between the sacred and the profane.
Material things were consecrated with spiritual powers. God was thought to live in the stones of the cathedrals, and miracles inhered in the bones of the saints. The world seemed spiritually alive, and the power of spirit could overshadow politics. As Johan Huizinga wrote in “The Autumn of the Middle Ages,” “The most revealing map of Europe in these centuries would be a map, not of political or commercial capitals, but of the constellation of sanctuaries, the points of material contact with the unseen world.”
We tend to see economics and politics as the source of human motives, and then explain spirituality as their byproduct — as Barack Obama tried artlessly to do in San Francisco the other week. But in the Middle Ages, faith came first. The symbols, processions and services were vividly alive.
Large parts of medieval life were attempts to play out a dream, in ways hard to square with the often grubby and smelly reality. There were the elaborate manners of the courtly, the highly stylized love affairs and the formal chivalric code of knighthood. There was this driving impulsion among the well-born to idealize. This idealizing urge produced tournaments, quests and the mystical symbols of medieval art — think of the tapestries of the pure white unicorn. The gap between the ideal and the real is also what Cervantes made fun of in “Don Quixote.”
Writers like C. S. Lewis and John Ruskin seized on medieval culture as an antidote to industrialism — to mass manufacturing, secularization and urbanization. Without turning into an Arthurian cultist, it’s nice to look up from the latest YouTube campaign moment and imagine a sky populated with creatures, symbols and tales.
Not to go on too long, but I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. I know for me, a literature major in undergrad and a lawyer, I love the contrast between raw rationality and its often times harshness and the beauty and enriching quality of art of all forms. I think that the two need to be in combination for a fully enriched life. One in exclusion of the other, leads to a vapid and fundamental misunderstanding or misapprehension of life . . . in my opinion.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Today's Bathroom Reading
At some point of my work afternoon, I make a sojourn to the restroom. Before I go to the restroom however, I always like to print out 3 or 4 articles that I want to read while in the bathroom. I usually read a lot of interesting articles and I want to take the opportunity to pass these great articles along. So, I've decided to make this a new, daily feature. I'll give you the link to the article, a brief "snippet" from the article and a "*" (we'll call it a star) rating with * * * * 4 stars being an outstanding, interesting, must-read and a * 1 star being pretty meh.
So here it is! Let me know your thoughts on this new feature.
Today's Bathroom Reading:
Fareed Zakaria- "Don't Feed China's Nationalism" (Newsweek) April 21, 2008 * *
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
Jonah Goldberg- "How Neo are the Neocons?" (National Review) April 23, 2008 * *
Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)
Joe Klein- "The Patriotism Problem" (Time) April 3, 2008 * * *
But there was still something missing. I noticed it during Obama's response to a young man who remembered how the country had come together after Sept. 11 and lamented "the dangerously low levels of patriotism and pride in our country, the loss of faith in our elected officials." Obama used this, understandably, to go after George W. Bush. "Cynicism has become the hot stock," he said, "the growth industry during the Bush Administration." He talked about the Administration's mendacity, its incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, its lack of transparency. But he never returned to the question of patriotism. He never said, "But hey, look, we're Americans. This is the greatest country on earth. We'll rise to the occasion."
This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.
So here it is! Let me know your thoughts on this new feature.
Today's Bathroom Reading:
Fareed Zakaria- "Don't Feed China's Nationalism" (Newsweek) April 21, 2008 * *
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
Jonah Goldberg- "How Neo are the Neocons?" (National Review) April 23, 2008 * *
Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)
Joe Klein- "The Patriotism Problem" (Time) April 3, 2008 * * *
But there was still something missing. I noticed it during Obama's response to a young man who remembered how the country had come together after Sept. 11 and lamented "the dangerously low levels of patriotism and pride in our country, the loss of faith in our elected officials." Obama used this, understandably, to go after George W. Bush. "Cynicism has become the hot stock," he said, "the growth industry during the Bush Administration." He talked about the Administration's mendacity, its incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, its lack of transparency. But he never returned to the question of patriotism. He never said, "But hey, look, we're Americans. This is the greatest country on earth. We'll rise to the occasion."
This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.
DOH! Give her money!
Dear Eric,
This campaign is your campaign, and the victory we celebrated last night is your victory. Now, thanks to you, the tide is turning in this race. We never stopped believing in one another, never doubted that we could count on each other. You didn't quit, and when I'm president, I promise I won't quit on you. Now with the next critical contests right around the corner, we need your immediate help to build on the hard-earned momentum of our Pennsylvania victory and continue our success all the way to the nomination.
Contribute today to help carry our momentum to Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and beyond.
Even though the Obama campaign went for broke trying to knock us out of the race, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas. We connected with Pennsylvania families who know they need a strong leader who's on their side to turn around the battered Bush economy and end President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. And as this redefined contest moves across the country, we'll keep connecting. I'm in this race to fight for you. And you know you can count on me to keep fighting for you every day. And as long as we keep working together, we'll wrest control of the White House from the Republicans and defeat John McCain. I'm going to continue to rely on your heart and your spirit every step of the way.
Contribute now, and together, we can carry our winning message to victory.
Thanks to you, we're on a roll. And with your immediate help, we'll keep moving forward until we've won the Democratic nomination, won the November election, and earned the opportunity to lead America in a new, more promising direction. Thanks so much for believing in me and believing in how much we can accomplish if we keep pulling together.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wonder if it will work for me, if after ever paragraph I write, I insert [contribute now]?
The most promising line I see is that she wants to "lead America in a new, more promising direction."
Which direction is that? And how, if you are so experienced, and you're running on your husband's record, can you argue that you and ONLY you are capable of leading in a NEW direction?
Why can't she just say-- we like the status quo, don't like to rock the boat in this country, vote for me and we can continue with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo that has made this country great?! Clearly that is what we will be getting.
This campaign is your campaign, and the victory we celebrated last night is your victory. Now, thanks to you, the tide is turning in this race. We never stopped believing in one another, never doubted that we could count on each other. You didn't quit, and when I'm president, I promise I won't quit on you. Now with the next critical contests right around the corner, we need your immediate help to build on the hard-earned momentum of our Pennsylvania victory and continue our success all the way to the nomination.
Contribute today to help carry our momentum to Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and beyond.
Even though the Obama campaign went for broke trying to knock us out of the race, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas. We connected with Pennsylvania families who know they need a strong leader who's on their side to turn around the battered Bush economy and end President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. And as this redefined contest moves across the country, we'll keep connecting. I'm in this race to fight for you. And you know you can count on me to keep fighting for you every day. And as long as we keep working together, we'll wrest control of the White House from the Republicans and defeat John McCain. I'm going to continue to rely on your heart and your spirit every step of the way.
Contribute now, and together, we can carry our winning message to victory.
Thanks to you, we're on a roll. And with your immediate help, we'll keep moving forward until we've won the Democratic nomination, won the November election, and earned the opportunity to lead America in a new, more promising direction. Thanks so much for believing in me and believing in how much we can accomplish if we keep pulling together.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wonder if it will work for me, if after ever paragraph I write, I insert [contribute now]?
The most promising line I see is that she wants to "lead America in a new, more promising direction."
Which direction is that? And how, if you are so experienced, and you're running on your husband's record, can you argue that you and ONLY you are capable of leading in a NEW direction?
Why can't she just say-- we like the status quo, don't like to rock the boat in this country, vote for me and we can continue with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo that has made this country great?! Clearly that is what we will be getting.
- I know that its probably apostasy to suggest so, but the Democratic tactic of trying to label John McCain as another 4 years of the Bush administration is lame and won't work. It won't work because its not true, and the Democrats are treating everyone like idiots when they try and sell that line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)