freedom to blog
This story about the judge ordering the man to stop blogging about his estranged wife is really wild. The guy is writing bitter, fictionalized (or disguised?) blog posts about his soon to be ex-wife. She complains to the judge, who orders him to stop, possibly creating an entirely new arena of Internet law (one, obviously, that will be very challenged), questions about free speech on the Internet etc. Seriously? If the law were to ban people from fictionalizing (or not) their woes against exes, 50 percent of the Internet's purpose would dry up. Throw in a ban against complaining against bosses, ex's exes and ex-friends, and you'd have almost no blogosphere left, except, of course, for the political blogs.
Speaking of which, I've been perusing all the various posts on Richardson's imminent withdrawal (favoring Heath's at the moment. But there seems to be general consensus on a few things:
1. Richardson wouldn't turn down an SOS or VP job (obviously and, for what it's worth, I've had more than two people tell me that Richardson has told them that directly).
Again, it's irritating to me that he denies all along that he's interested in that but, then, everyone knows he is. And it will be spun around as, "well he wasn't interested in it when he was running for president, but now that he's not, blah blah blah." Isn't there a fine line between political semantics and being full of shit? And shouldn't one just try to stay away from that line if they are running for office in a year in which people are decidedly unequivocally sick of politicans being full of shit? I'm just saying.
2. The guv may find the Legislature harder to control than when he left. If so, something tells me bullying the Legislature into line may be just the post-presidential-partum-pick-me-up old Bill needs.
3. Some feel the guv may support one of the remaining candidates, aka Hillary for the Feb. 5 ballot. Others believe he's screwed up too badly with the Clintons to do so. Some think he may still try to win on the NM Feb. 5 ballot (on which he will remain) to try to control ballots at the Convention. Others say this is too risky and will piss people off. I predict he will not, certainly, publicly endorse anyone, but everyone will know that he's encouraging people to vote for someone but then when you ask him or his staff they will deny it and say no comment. Even though everyone knows it's true. My money's on Obama at the moment. I mean, my imaginary money.
4. Some wonder if Bill will now run for Domenici's seat for US Senate. Others say there's no way he will do that because Tom Udall is running and Tom's daughter, Amanda, is a heavyweight on Bill's campaign (a heavyweight who doesn't return phone calls, I might add) and there's no way Tom would have run if Bill was going to. I believe that is true, although I doubt it would stop him if Richardson really wanted to be in the US Senate. Which I assume he won't if he can be the SOS or the VP. If those are out of reach, then who knows.
5. Some say Bill will be remembered for trying, others say he will be remembered for failing. Some say he ran a good campaign, others say it wasn't good enough. He had clever ads, was a sucky debater, made some really stupid comments, although I thought his last few public appearances were a lot better. He touted his resume early and then the campaign turned into one in which change and youth were valued over experience. But I personally salute him for a comment he made during one of the post-Iowa debates, when he was asked if he thought youth was a detriment for a presidential candidate. Despite his emphasis on his experience, Richardson said very clearly that he did not think youth was a detriment and he spoke about the fact that JFK was a political hero of his, and that his youth and energy inspired a nation. I thought, at the time, that it was a generous and honest comment. I believe he really felt that, and that he can recognize that ain't no JFK. Although, now that I think about it, I suppose it might have been a comment calculated to gain points with Obama. Or, perhaps, it was a lucky truth. I find it really obvious when Richardson is being himself versus when he's trying to be something he's not, and that moment struck me as very much of the former ilk.
What a year it's going to be.
Speaking of which, I've been perusing all the various posts on Richardson's imminent withdrawal (favoring Heath's at the moment. But there seems to be general consensus on a few things:
1. Richardson wouldn't turn down an SOS or VP job (obviously and, for what it's worth, I've had more than two people tell me that Richardson has told them that directly).
Again, it's irritating to me that he denies all along that he's interested in that but, then, everyone knows he is. And it will be spun around as, "well he wasn't interested in it when he was running for president, but now that he's not, blah blah blah." Isn't there a fine line between political semantics and being full of shit? And shouldn't one just try to stay away from that line if they are running for office in a year in which people are decidedly unequivocally sick of politicans being full of shit? I'm just saying.
2. The guv may find the Legislature harder to control than when he left. If so, something tells me bullying the Legislature into line may be just the post-presidential-partum-pick-me-up old Bill needs.
3. Some feel the guv may support one of the remaining candidates, aka Hillary for the Feb. 5 ballot. Others believe he's screwed up too badly with the Clintons to do so. Some think he may still try to win on the NM Feb. 5 ballot (on which he will remain) to try to control ballots at the Convention. Others say this is too risky and will piss people off. I predict he will not, certainly, publicly endorse anyone, but everyone will know that he's encouraging people to vote for someone but then when you ask him or his staff they will deny it and say no comment. Even though everyone knows it's true. My money's on Obama at the moment. I mean, my imaginary money.
4. Some wonder if Bill will now run for Domenici's seat for US Senate. Others say there's no way he will do that because Tom Udall is running and Tom's daughter, Amanda, is a heavyweight on Bill's campaign (a heavyweight who doesn't return phone calls, I might add) and there's no way Tom would have run if Bill was going to. I believe that is true, although I doubt it would stop him if Richardson really wanted to be in the US Senate. Which I assume he won't if he can be the SOS or the VP. If those are out of reach, then who knows.
5. Some say Bill will be remembered for trying, others say he will be remembered for failing. Some say he ran a good campaign, others say it wasn't good enough. He had clever ads, was a sucky debater, made some really stupid comments, although I thought his last few public appearances were a lot better. He touted his resume early and then the campaign turned into one in which change and youth were valued over experience. But I personally salute him for a comment he made during one of the post-Iowa debates, when he was asked if he thought youth was a detriment for a presidential candidate. Despite his emphasis on his experience, Richardson said very clearly that he did not think youth was a detriment and he spoke about the fact that JFK was a political hero of his, and that his youth and energy inspired a nation. I thought, at the time, that it was a generous and honest comment. I believe he really felt that, and that he can recognize that ain't no JFK. Although, now that I think about it, I suppose it might have been a comment calculated to gain points with Obama. Or, perhaps, it was a lucky truth. I find it really obvious when Richardson is being himself versus when he's trying to be something he's not, and that moment struck me as very much of the former ilk.
What a year it's going to be.
posted by Julia at 7:19 AM
<< Home