Obama's appearance on Fox News today is predictably giving the blogosphere fits. Personally, I don't really care. Fox News isn't going away. Anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves.

Nevertheless, we are seeing the typical bile from the HRC crowd. Exhibit one is Jerome Armstrong's typically bitter response to it. As always, his guiding principle is based on cynicism. "See. Your candidate panders just as much as ours does."

As I see it, there are about two lines of attack on Obama from HRC supporters.

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

I picked up the link to this paper by progressive economist, Steve Rose, at Donkey Rising the other day.  It's an extensive paper about how much economic self-interest voters actually have in the typical policy prescriptions of old line Liberalism.   His basic point is that the safety net in its current form does not take in as many people as is typically thought by most Liberals.  

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

I was listening today to Terry Gross interview former Republican Senator Danforth about what has become of the Republican Party.  At one point Gross asked him about the filibuster and he responded that in his day it would have been virtually unthinkable to imagine that a low level political nominee like the UN ambassador would have been filibustered.  An up or down vote was always considered a courtesy to the President in his work of filling executive branch posts.  

Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

Today, Ed Kilgor points out something I was wondering about myself.

I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz.  Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me.  I prefer it if people know the real me.  Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

Before I read anything else, I wanted to  give my take on the speech tonight.  Here it is.

A sad moment.  That's all I can describe Bush's speech as.  Sad.  

Throughout our nation's history, we have at times had statesmen as our leaders who were willing to rise above the partisanship and bickering, rise above their own arrogance and agendas, and explain things the way they needed to be explained to the American people, to level with them in a way that they can accept the way things are, accept what has happened, and sacrifice and soldier on.  Sadly, tonight George Bush finally proved once and for all that he has never had the kind of vision and honesty that such a thing would require.  

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

There's been a lot of discussion of wheather it is possible for Bush's approval rating to fall below 40%.  At this point, I would say I think there is a real possibility.  Teixeria yesterday, commenting on the recent ARG poll argues that it is in fact likely.

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

You get the impression right now that the Administration is really flailing for some sort of politically feasible way to support the Iraq War over the next few years.  Let's walk through the various approaches they've used since the election.