Hi. I think David Brooks, MoDo, and the Washington Times all suck massive ass.

[WilliamPitt]

So it's a real pleasure when I see DUers use them as sources to attack a Democratic candidate that is 50% likely to be nominated.

No, really. Right-wing smear sources fucking rule my mind. I LOVE them.

Keep at it.

:P

Let's list the sites that have no business on this forum, shall we? I already did mine.

Your turn.

[Tatiana]

1. Peggy Noonan. n/t

[Raven]

2. Go back to the Gardening Forum! Heh, heh.

[WillyT]

25. Ya Know... My Mom Would Post Something Similar To That As Well...:

And yet, I STILL Love her...

:rofl::evilgrin::rofl:

:hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. Are you kidding?

David Brooks is one of the intellectual giants of our time. Nevermind that he's consistently wrong on everything and likes to play stupid half the time. Or is he playing hmmmm?

[mitchum]

14. But...but...but...he was clumsy and bad at sports while growing up...

so he must be intelligent!
That's how it work it works, isn't it? At least in the minds of Brooks, Will, Kristol, Goldberg...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. Do you think that getting the shit kicked out of them daily also influenced these great minds? nt

[mitchum]

41. Don't know about that; they seem to still be full of shit...

:)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. It's never too late to finish the job though.

}(

[NC_Nurse]

4. Cokie Roberts.

:puke:

[NC_Nurse]

5. Oh, I forgot Kristol. Mr. Shiteating Grin of the Neocons.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[DFW]

6. As the Bard said, "Let me count the ways...."

[bigtree]

7. I won't post MoDo (again), but I read MoDo . . . and, sometimes, the others

. . . but, you're right, using them to attack here is a joke.

I think that some of the folks who get to post on HuffPo are coming in under the radar, under HuffPo's banner.

[CitizenLeft]

8. David Frum

Dear GOD.

I can't stand him.

[babylonsister]

9. And I think when people stop posting filth from Larry Johnson,

Taylor Marsh and one-sided articles from Paul Krugman, all smearing Obama, maybe I'll consider lightening up.
This works both ways.

[ThatPoetGuy]

17. "one-sided articles from Paul Krugman"

like the ones where he attacked Bush again and again, in the days when everyone else was showing him tha loooove.

Yes, that Krugman is certainly a bad guy, who shouldn't be respected on DU.

[babylonsister]

20. I was one of the people who loved him; recently, not so much. nt

[bigtree]

21. All former icons fall in the face of Obama love

. . . unless they pay homage to the 'movement"

[babylonsister]

22. How about being fairminded in their criticism? You wouldn't

understand that. Sour grapes are ruling around here.

[bigtree]

23. I've never seen such sour grapes from folks who claim to be so far ahead

It looks like there's still a campaign to be fought. Put your thick skin back on.

[babylonsister]

24. It's my right to defend my candidate; I'd be less vociferous

if the Clinton folks were, or if they stopped posting baseless crap.

Exhibit A from this morn:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4740478

[bigtree]

26. like the Dowd article you posted today playing at the gender of our candidates? That was a hoot.

. . . was that in response to the post about the turnout at one of Obama's rallies? That'll show them.

[babylonsister]

bigtree, get over it. You won't like anything I post, so pls. put me on

ignore. We'd both benefit.

[bigtree]

30. you've got to be kidding. This political stuff makes all of us insane.

It'll wear off when we join in against the republican nominee. You'll NEVER be on my ignore list.

[ThatPoetGuy]

32. When has Krugman been unfairminded in his critcism?

Ever?

He wrote about universal health care before Obama ever announced his plan. He has been consistent on this issue, for years, before Obama announced his non-mandatory plan.

Years ago, Krugman wrote that he thinks Republicans follow a false ideology and they need to be fought, not compromised with. He has been consistent on that issue, for years.

On each and every issue where Krugman has criticized Obama, he has represented his core principles fairly and accurately. It's sickening to see people attacking him for this.

Argue with his principles if you will, but don't be so swift to attack the man ad hominem. Krugman is not a right-wing shill, he never was, and he never will be. He's not a shill for Hillary either. He has been standing up for his principles in his criticism of Obama, just as he was standing up for his principles when he criticized the Iraq war and tax cuts for the wealthy.

[robbedvoter]

33. 8 years of speaking truth to power re: Bushco - cancelled by failure toreceive the Obama

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I don't agree with Paul Krugman's take on Obama but he is a legit source IMO

Krugman is a genuine progressive who should be taken seriously even if you disagree with him. Right wing sources like David Brooks should not be taken seriously.

[BuyingThyme]

10. How 'bout that Hillary Clinton for President site?

[robbedvoter]

35. And all her voters - send them to Gitmo - and the BO Movement shall triumph

[WilliamPitt]

11. .

[billyoc]

12. Taylor Marsh, Naomi Ragen. nt

[matcom]

13. *Runs over to Drudge to get the REAL news*

oh look....

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

The case offers a glimpse into the way Clinton deals with crisis. Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win, an attitude captured in one of her favorite aphorisms: "Bloom where you're planted."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story

:rofl:

[Justpat]

15. The New York Post.

Rupert Murdoch's very own right wing propaganda rag.

[Emit]

16. Lyndon LaRouche and Rense. n/t

[QC]

18. Charles Krauthammer. n/t

[Coexist]

19. Drudge, LGF... Survey results from ARG or Zogby maybe?

Oh, and people have actually linked to Karl Rove's words of wisdom as an argument for their candidate.

[VolcanoJen]

27. You forgot Hannity.

:-)

[ZinZen]

31. Tucker, do not leave always wrong Tucker.

[ginnyinWI]

28. Pat Buchanan

Whatever he says usually turns out to be wrong. If Pat is saying it, I know the reverse is more likely.

[SoxFan]

29. Weekly World News, RIP

Hey, they tried to be bipartisan!

[sniffa]

34. 50% likely?

:rofl:

[Cha]

36. ..

:)

[sniffa]

37. I mean, she's at 15% today

I understand he's being polite, but he could have at least said 49%.

Hey Will, when are we going out for a beer again? I swear, this time I won't tell DU that you were reading the Boston Herald. :P

[WilliamPitt]

38. IT WAS THE SPORTS PAGE!!!

:P

I'm around. Probably going there later tonight, actually. Throw me a PM whenever you're planning to swing through.

[sniffa]

40. One thing that's a shame

Friday was my company's last day at the office 2 blocks away. :eyes:

But I'm in the city at least 5 days a week, so any time. What days are best?

edit: by days I mean nights, unless it's one of those morning/afternoon Red Sox games where we gather for beer and brunch at The Pour House on Saturday, or Patriots Day.

[Barrymores Ghost]

44. Will, for fuggsakes, call me..... N/T

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. Lou Dobbs. nt

[mikekohr]

46. They All Suck Massive Ass?

Would that be Limbaugh's ass?