Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.


  • ***


« Unearthing the real difference -- because there is one, and it is profound | Main | "Your Brain on Obama Will Kill (the GOP)" »

February 03, 2008


G. Domenic

I'm pulling for Clinton. For me, too much is unknown about Obama. He could succeed greatly or fail greatly, but with Clinton she's a sure bet! Wake up, people! Obama is a "roll of the dice!"


Obama: Right on Iraq from the start. Clinton: Wrong on Iraq from the start.

I want a president who will be on the right side of the debate, not one who chooses the politically safe side of the debate.

It's Obama all the way.


Did you ever hear of loaded dice? Obama intellectual weight and gravitas loads the dice in his favor.


Ron Paul 2008


Well put on Hillary's Health-Care evasiveness, PM.
Indeed, "EVASIVE" is the watchword of Hillary positions over the past 8 years. She is clearly not as politically gifted as her husband, who could make his point, lacerate his opponent, and sound agreeable all at the same time. Hillary CAN'T MAKE THE SIMPLE POINT that "Compassionate Conservatism" means that it as a good thing that (poor) children DIE of PREVENTABLE illnesses, when lack of PREVENTATIVE health-care creates life-threatening situations.
(Actual Bill Kristol video from Fox 'news' "Whenever I hear of a 'heartless assault on poor children', I tend to think it is a good idea.")
For heck's sake, HILLARY CAN'T EVEN FIND ANYTHING BAD TO SAY ABOUT DICK CHENEY, KARL ROVE or William Kristol (et al's) ghoulish agenda these past 3 years? WHAT IS HER PROBLEM?

(The short answer to "What is Hillary's Problem?" is that she, like Nancy Pelosi, is Joe Lieberman in a skirt. Lieberman of course is the uber-AIPAC pro-war lobbyist, the most ardent supporter of Bush-Cheney's occupation of Iraq in the entire US Congress. Both Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are happy to play second fiddle, if not supporting chorus, to that "MORE WAR NOW!" agenda.
"Pelosi THE AIPAC GIRL give Bush White House Blank Checks for Iraq War"

AIPAC (Israel-America pro-war lobby) March 2007 conference "bipartisan" members give VP Dick Cheney a standing ovation for his most bombastic "BOMB IRAN NOW!" rhetoric,

Hillary CAN'T BRING HERSELF to CONFRONT and CRITICIZE the serial, chronic, in-your-face Bush-Cheney abuses of power, beause like Schumer, Feinstein, Lieberman, Reid, Rockefeller, and other senators, She is SO BEHOLDEN to the AIPAC and War- lobbies.

Billy Ray Valentine

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get, what you've always got....


One thing about Hillary's health care plan that triggered a vocal response from my wife (a medical social worker) during the debate was that part of the problem is not just insuring patients but that the system itself is structured to maximize corporate profit margins. Let there be no mistake that the much of the health care industry is managed for profit. That itself is not so much a problem, but it should cause one pause to imagine the abuses that can occur when this is the first priority. It also makes me wonder about what level of windfall this would create for the private health care industry. Hillary has received financial backing for her campaign from the insurance industry (readers are encouraged to Google that information and draw their own conclusions).

For example (and this is my experience), if I purchase a wheelchair privately it costs around 200-300 dollars. If a hospital bills Medicare for a wheelchair is suddenly $900. The fact that part of Senator Obama's plan stresses reducing medical costs in general speaks to this concern for me. I am all for everybody having health coverage. I just feel that Hillary's plan asks me to have too much faith in the motives and her ability to get it through congress.


My father died of cancer, my mother died of heart failure. Their insurance was good, but the doctors and the hospital were nothing but a pack of thieves. They see a dying patient and they clean out the bank account as best they can. It is common in the USA to have a spouse die after a six month illness or so, and the surviving spouse gets a hospital bill for $250,000. It used to be factory owners were exploiters, but today it is the doctors and hospitals.


This morning, Yahoo reports that Hillary would be willing to excite the conservative fear of confiscatory politics in the form of mandated wage garnishment to pay for a universal health plan. Personally, I think Hillary just handed the Republicans the loaded gun to blow what's left of the brains out of her campaign!

Hillary has no credibility with me after that abomination of a health plan she tried to promote back in 1993. I doubt that anything but her ambition has grown since then, and this latest fiasco only illustrates that Obama's comment about choosing the candidate who is right on the first day is the right standard to use to measure the candidates.


Read the article in today's NYTimes about Obama's cratering to the nuclear energy industry when Exelon leaked hazardous materials, PJ. The industry got everything they wanted in Obama's final legislation.

And Goldman Sachs, Obama's biggest contributor? They got no cap on interest rates for predatory credit cards from Obama, just like they wanted.

Goldman Sachs lobbyist about Obama:

"THIS is a man we can work with."

He's not tough enough, PJ.

His version of "bipartisanship" is exactly that of his Senate mentor Joe Lieberman: giving the Republicans exactly what they want.

He SAYS one thing in lofty speeches, but DOES another when it gets down to legislation.

I've had enough of that.

No thanks.

Keith Blevins

Sorry to say it but its looking more and more like you're becoming a hopehead. I wish I could get inspired over Senator Obama, I really do, but I want more than a deep baritone who delivers a good speech. It is symptomatic that the Senator spends so much time explaining himself. And even more so that at the end of his explaining his positions are no more clear than when he started.

scott douglas

Dr. Phil,

Yesterday, you wrote eloquently of the stakes for the future being played out in these primaries and caused me to pause in my cynical analysis and consider seriously the Obama campaign.

Senator Kennedy almost accomplished the same thing last week with his endorsement. ;-)


I hate to say this, but the Dem going into the general MUST be a knife fighter, regardless of policy issues; and, frankly, without regard to the cast he or she may throw on the future of the progressive movement.

I think either candidate/president will be forced to sell-out our agenda in order to remain viable. We are the eternal Sistah Soldier of the American electorate unless and until the real sh*t hits the fan... You know: open rebellion in the colonies, 30% unemployment, that kinna stuff...

In any case, to my mind, it is critical that the Democratic nominee is elected - with the hope of salvaging something of the tattered remnants of the Republic.

Yikes. I could never post this over at Chris Floyd's site...they would tear me to pieces...


I agree with your view. But we simply MUST win this time. I guess that's all I am suggesting.



Hillary and Obama: 2 cheeks on the same horse's ass.

Thank goodness Ralph Nader may run again!


I have trust issues with Hillary AND Barack. I was an Edwards supporter and my primary is tomorrow. I am still going back and forth between wanting the best healthcare plan (Hillary's - cribbed from Edwards) and believing that either she or Obama will do anything more than go through the motions to get any significant healthcare legislation passed before they come up with some half-ass compromise that provides bad healthcare for nearly everyone at an exorbitant price. Barack's "voluntary" plan just isn't going to work with so many working people struggling to make ends meet but not officially labeled "poor."

I may just vote for Edwards anyway. It looks like Hillary has a big lead in my state so my vote would not make much difference either way.


I find Obama disingenuous on many topics, his house is the most glaring among them. However, rather than go over old news, at the CA debate I found his answer on illegal immigration to be a perfect example of it.

He goes for the applause with the thought of not wanting to scapegoat an entire people because black youths were unemployed before this most recent wave of immigrants came.

So, after essentially disputing the fact that black folks in LA and their attempts to get a minor pay raise were undermined by brings in undocumented Latinos, in the very city it happened. Done solely, to pander to the larger Latino vote.

In the same answer, he then contradicts himself by bringing up the fact "they will continue to undermine US wages". Is anyone really listening to him? He bails on black folks to pander to the Latino vote and then throwing them under the bus while claiming not to scapegoat them....ugh!

I'm sorry but the Republican machine is much better than this shallow thinking. There is a lot of room to exploit this "feel good answer" at the expense of true logic being applied while exposing the contradiction.

Like a poster said earlier, I wish Obama did it for me. But he doesn't. In fact, he reminds me of the "feel good candidate" Dubya more than anything.

However, his complete lack of spine to vote on big business is another major concern. Those votes scream...he is exactly what he complains Hillary is.

So, he effectively just negated those claims as well with spineless 'not voting' votes.

At least Hillary didn't have to lie to black folks about what happened in their community to get votes. Just ask the Janitor's Union in LA if they were undermined for asking for a very reasonable pay raise. Just ask if black contractors were undermined by illegal immigration in CA during the 80s, 90s, and beyond in retaliation for affirmative action contracts going to their companies after lawsuits.

Lots of facts in these feel good answers to exploit.

I do think Hillary has a better chance at the Republican machine. Her answers are structured better in light of facts, not the spin the main stream media normally gives us.

The comments to this entry are closed.