Big Dog embarrasses Repuke and says we need to "beat their brains out."

This may have been posted previously but in case it hasn't it's damn good reading.

Big Dog is starting to see things as a lot of us are in that we HAVE to fight for what we believe against these neo-fascists. Anyway enjoy the article...his comments are on page 2 toward the end.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/n_9121/index.html

A person can only keep so much bottled up for so long. I'm surprised that he didn't explode sooner and more violently. I wish there was a transcript of the whole thing because I think that he could give the Dems some pretty harsh talking points.

I seriously hope this turns up on C-Span.

That repuke sounds like a total schmuck:

When Clinton took questions, a young man from a technology company who identified himself as chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 in California said he was offended by Clinton’s partisanship. To which Clinton, without hesitation, and with some kind of predatory gleam in his eye, said, “Good!”

We are supposed to be above that petty partisan stuff. But I am glad he reacted. It gives me hope that we have the comeback kid ready to go out there and take 'em on.

Before the convention, the candidates each have their own following. But, like many others, I haven't committed yet.

I can rally behind the last legit president until the party decides who will be next. Lead on Bill, let's get this country on the right path to the return of peace and prosperity. Help pave the way for a REAL leader so we can get rid of this war monger and his neo-clone profiteers.

We are in a war with the repukes. It should be fought like the Russian front. Take no prisoners and shot the wounded.
The repukes claim moral high ground, but they have no morals. No one should ever forget what is a stake. The pink tutu Senate Democrats have, and they are an endangered specie. The Dems should look on the struggle as the knife fight scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." There are no rules in a knife fight.

All I've seen is the one word quote. I'd like to hear exactly what he said beyond just "good".

the message was loud and clear that we're not going to take your bullshit anymore and you can expect tit for tat! In other words, partisanship is a two way street.

And that is the difference between him and the dems we see now. Even during the Jennifer Flowers thing, he always had a counterattack on the repubs. Yes, testosterone does fuel politics and we should be ready, willing, and able to use it on the Bushies.

The gloves are off now.

Can I tell you when the Democrats lost the 2000 election? It was on the night of August 17, 1998 when President Clinton went on television to discuss his testimony re: Monica earlier that day. The American people were expecting and would have been accepting of an unequivocal admission to and contrite apology for the affair with Lewinsky. Instead, what they got was a half-hearted expression of regret for an unspecified 'mistake' coupled with a vigorous slam of Starr. Blame Harry Thomasson if you like, but that was the moment that killed the Dems for 2000. The Senate may have let him off, but the public didn't and took it out on Gore who should have and otherwise WOULD have won it by 20 points, particularly given the fantastic economy at the time.
There are times when it is good to be pugnacious. But I would never ever look to Clinton's example again after what his actions cost the Democratic Party three years ago.

what about Newt Gingrich resigning?

How do you reconcile these with your theory that Clinton killed the dems in Aug. 1998?

Newt quit because Flynt exposed his affair. Unrelated.

Dems picked up five seats in 1998, all right, but I think the American people were waiting to see what the Senate would do to Clinton. When they let him walk, in January of 1999, I think that's when people decided to take matters into their own hands.

The Democratic party was in disarray for years before Clinton. The more I read about the Clinton years, the more I'm convinced that the hard right would have gotten him for something; if not Monica Lewinsky, we would have been "outraged" about something else.

As for Gore, I'm convinced the press (and his handlers inability to deal with the press) cost him the 2000 election.

there's a suprise! I say Gore lost the 2000 election when he selected Holy Joe as a running mate. There was no ground swell of support for Holy Joe. Al wanted to be 'his own man' so he selected a twit who had denounced Clinton from the Senate floor.

"Hi, my name is Joe Lieberman, and I represent the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."

"Hi, my name is Joe Lieberman, and I want to make sure there are at least two Republicans running for President in 2004."

he said a lot more. I read it somewhere, I can't remember. Either MWO, or Buzzflash. There was an entire article about this elite gathering of the famous and wealthy liberals, invited there by Walter Issacs for a three-day symposium. The headliner in the article was the blistering retort given by Bill in response to a pug techie. The article was written by one of the elite journalists that attended by invitation only.

and he kicked his butt too.

dp

We need to remember what Ted Rall said. "It's the ferocity, stupid!":grr:

I bet he'd have a lot to say about the power grabs in texas and Calif. also:spank:

Any D over any r in '04 (or in '03)!:bounce: