Check this out...Nick Kristoff from NYT writes his Op-Ed today, concurring with what I wrote in the blog yesterday on the Clinton dynasty!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/opinion/31kristof.html?hp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Reports, analyses, and opinions on politics, current events, health care, the economy, equity markets, odd news, and sports.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(259)
-
▼
January
(62)
- Monthly Update
- Update on Polls
- Finger on the Pulse
- Food Sampler
- In Reagan's Shadow
- Vaccine for Drug Addiction
- Flying Naked
- Why Do We Want to Re-live the past?
- Hidden Facts on Bottled Water
- Rudy Rudy Rudy
- Back Door Hillary
- The "Handshake"
- Et tu Brute?
- Are We Too Pessimistic?
- More Floss
- Sicko
- Big Pharma
- Floss
- Obama Rocks SC
- Bronzie Fonzie
- Stimulus Shimulus
- Why Can't We Do this in the US?
- Pig Spleen Meteorology
- NYTs Endorsements
- Double Bottom
- Global Warming- Dogs, Cows, and Beckham
- Capitulation
- Apple-sauce
- Funniest Commercials
- Brady's Foot
- Do Cuts = $ ????
- Blood on the Streets, Part Deux
- Candidate Match Game
- Experience matters? Nah...
- Blood on the Streets
- Don't Eat Tyson Chickens!
- I hate Mitt Romney
- Vegas Baby!
- Hillary Battles Russert
- Financial Update
- Will's Blog
- Romney and the Economy
- Sir Edmund Hillary Dies
- Wild and Wacky
- Jib Jab
- Big Mac is Back!
- More On Edwards
- Crocodile Tears or Genuine?
- Really breaking news
- Breaking Results from NH
- New Hampshire Primary
- Do Monkeys Pay for Sex?
- More Clemens Crap
- Saturday Night's Alright for Fightin'
- Word on the Street
- Clemens
- Musharraf
- Market Weakness
- Obamamania!
- Too Much Scanning!!
- Obesity
- Iowa
-
▼
January
(62)
4 comments:
I don't really get this line of argument. I can understand 'no more Clintons' or 'no more Bushes' but to act like the whole 24 years is one monolithic dynasty makes no sense. An argument that makes a little more sense is research showing that our current 2 party structure promotes centrism and therefore every winning candidate -- whether labelled Democrat or Republican, Bush or Clinton -- is too similar to encourage creative political change.
Tried to check this on snopes.com, but couldn't find anything. Hilary says that the Gores and the Bushes are distant relatives. So it would be the Gore/Bush monolith, not the Clinton/Bush monolith. Sort of. I cannot verify that anything I've just said is true.
hilary bulman or hillary clinton?
Though I know you are joking, I'll point out that Rodham/Clinton spells her with two Ls and Bulman spells her with one.
I still can't get this straight and always want to spell Clinton's with one L.
Post a Comment