Having just upbraided Ezra by explaining that there wasn't "a sliver of policy difference" between Barack and Hillary, except for healthcare, AS goes on to find a world of difference, somehow:
Which candidate has evoked the most adamant hostility ... I know how they feel. -AS
So, tell me, how does one end up with "adamant hostility" toward Clinton, if one thinks she's the same on policy, eh? Clearly, AS is still in "cootie" mode and cannot escape it, right?
If Obama's "goodbye to all that" comes at the expense of watered-down policy initiatives from a President eager to please the AS's of the world and unwilling to be firm and confrontational in the right ways, it's probably not worth it, with all that is at stake.
If Obama's "goodbye to all that" comes at the expense of watered-down policy initiatives from a President eager to please the AS's of the world, it's probably not worth it, with all that is at stake.Meanwhile, a nationwide survey doesn't matter, and AS should know better. I've already posted the swing-state figures. Clinton can do it. If I really thought there was not a choice, I wouldn't bother to pressure AS's whimsical thesis about a new era of good feeling.
David Brooks ... can wait for the next election, frankly, to find what he is looking for. I don't recall him backing Kerry or finding a "core" to Dean or Gore (I could be mistaken). The Democrats are supposed to get thrown off their game, just because a bunch of air-sick Republicans decide that Hillary is potentially more damaging to conservative principles than is Obama?
AND ... AND... I'm supposed to play along, or look "partisan" and backward-looking. If it weren't real, you'd say it was unbelieveable fiction, that.
