Recent Feed Comments
Recent Splice Original Comments
Recent Multimedia Comments
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 18, 2015, 08:53AM
    Good grief; I've become snide and insulting? All right, whatever. Take care.
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 17, 2015, 04:52PM
    krugman has officially jumped the shark. like vanden heuvel, he's a wealthy nyc elite totally disconnected from the lives of those he calls "rich." HE, in fact, is rich, and I'll betcha when it comes to his own money, he's as tight as a drum. that's the classic liberal double standard. spend spend spend, long as it's someone else's money. i hope i pass krugman on an NYC street one day. he'll know he met me.....
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 17, 2015, 01:58PM
    Thomas was a huge boost but I'm not sure any of those other players, save Bradley, are long-term keepers. I think this run is mostly about Stevens, and that may be the best development for the Celtics.
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 17, 2015, 12:52PM
    Yes, the vilification is bad. A-Rod is just as guilty as the others. But why would you want to root for that narcissist? I can't wait till he's out of baseball; I never liked him anyways.
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 16, 2015, 02:37PM
    Thanks for the tip Alison- I will check it out. Vive smut!
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 16, 2015, 01:49PM
    Considering your love of smut, Mary, I'm shocked you're not a regular Shameless watcher. It's great!
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 16, 2015, 12:36PM
    I wasn't aware that Biden and Webb, and Warren dropped out. In fact, I wasn't aware that anyone dropped out yet. If it were actually true I'd agree that the media should report just that. When was the Iowa primary again? The fact is that you are unwillingly to face reality. It is just like your attitude towards readers who dare to use facts when disagreeing with you. Rather than answer or explain your side, you become snide and insulting for no reason. Now you are just making shit up in order to deflect from your muddled thinking. If you took a shot at using reason and fact, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised by the feedback.
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 16, 2015, 12:15PM
    2007 was really different. She didn't have anything like the same level of party support; as a result, there were multiple reasonable contenders. There are none now, because they all dropped out, because she's won. Only people who don't care whether they win or not are going to challenge her at this point.//I answered a bunch of your questions. And tone matters. You're not just mirroring my tone; you're out and out insulting, constantly. There's no need for it. It makes talking to you really unnecessarily unpleasant.// And yep, I do think people care about everything she does, just like people care about reality tv trivia. She's really popular. Also people are interested in presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, she's won the nomination way, way before the official contest is over, so the media are left covering trivialities because there's nothing to cover. But again that's not really the media's fault in being fascinated with Clinton; it's Clinton's fault for (very skillfully) winning the nomination way before any votes are cast.// I think the media could do a lot better in informing people that she actually *has* won; folks don't in general seem to understand that. But that's where media bias kicks in. The media wants there to be a race of some sort; they want there to be an open question because the political horse race sells papers.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 15, 2015, 05:17PM
    Concerning tone, I merely mirror yours. No reason to get huffy when one points out obvious contradictions. Despite your assumptions and claims, she is a contender not the nominee (remember this time 07?). You state as much in your piece but now contest your own work in the comments section. Do you really think that people care about where she had for lunch? From my perspective, most readers don't hence the reason people are mocking it. Thereby making the story about the media and not Clinton. You say you don't mind questions, will you answer the one I posted earlier instead of complaining about in-kind tone?
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 15, 2015, 04:35PM
    Hey Texan. I don't really get why you feel it's necessary to be so thoroughly unpleasant at every opportunity. What does it accomplish? Do you think it makes your arguments seem more reasonable when they're sprinkled with pointless insults? Is spouting anonymous vitriol just a pleasure for you in itself? I don't mind talking to you or anything, and you often have reasonable questions, but the insults just get kind of old.// Clinton isn't a contender; she's won the nomination. That means there's a very good chance she'll be the next President of the United States, which is the most important political position in the country, and probably the world. So...yeah, what she thinks, what she talks about, how she conducts herself — all of those are newsworthy.//Also, as I said, newspapers tend to cover things people are interested in. They cover Clinton for the same reason they cover Beyonce; she's popular, people are interested in her.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 15, 2015, 04:23PM
    Noah, News is defined as "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events." Merely being a democratic contender does not qualify as "news". Why should newspapers cover that if the candidate did nothing "new" or noteworthy? Only thing clear here is the jar holding your I.Q. points
  • Go to comment.
    Apr 15, 2015, 01:39PM
    Hunchback, it's not shilling for Obama to say he's President. It's not shilling for Clinton to say she's won the nomination, or to say she's very popular. It's just acknowledging the facts.//Texan, the narrative around Clinton's nomination has little suspense, because she's won already. However, she's newsworthy because she's the democratic nominee, and covering the democratic nominee for President is something that newspapers should do. I think my point there is fairly clear; sorry if you got confused.
    Responses to this comment